Jones v. United States, infdco20191226894 (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20191226894
Visitors: 21
Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES FEDERICO A. MORENO , District Judge . THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines (D.E. 29), filed on December 13, 2019 . THE COURT has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. Not only does the Plaintiff not oppose t
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES FEDERICO A. MORENO , District Judge . THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines (D.E. 29), filed on December 13, 2019 . THE COURT has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. Not only does the Plaintiff not oppose th..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
FEDERICO A. MORENO, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines (D.E. 29), filed on December 13, 2019.
THE COURT has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is
ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. Not only does the Plaintiff not oppose the Defendants' request to stay discovery and the obligations imposed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss, but additionally, "facial challenges to a complaint on the basis of qualified immunity should be `resolved before discovery begins.'" Weissman v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 03-61107-CIV, 2008 WL 11400772, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2008) (staying discovery pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss that raised qualified immunity) (quoting Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997)); see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) ("Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.").
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
