TERESA J. JAMES, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 28). In their motion, individual Defendants Kristine Aulepp, Amber McCafferty, Jason Clark, Jason Troll, Justin Alexander and Claude May, and Defendant United States ask the undersigned Magistrate Judge to enter a stay of discovery pending the presiding District Judge's ruling on their Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25). Plaintiffs oppose the requested stay. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion.
The decision to stay discovery and other pretrial proceedings is firmly vested in the sound discretion of the trial court.
However, a stay pending a ruling on a dispositive motion is appropriate where the case is likely to be finally concluded as a result of the ruling, where the facts sought through the remaining discovery would not affect the ruling on the pending motion, or where discovery on all issues in the case would be wasteful and burdensome.
An stay may also be appropriate when the party requesting it has filed a dispositive motion asserting absolute or qualified immunity.
A party seeking a stay of discovery has the burden to clearly show a compelling reason for the court to issue a stay.
Defendants argue that a stay is appropriate because the individual Defendants have moved for dismissal or summary judgment of Plaintiffs' Bivens claims
Although only one of the four counts in Plaintiffs' amended complaint has been met with a defense of qualified immunity, Defendants also seek a stay of discovery for the remaining three counts which assert claims against the United States and the individual Defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Defendants merely repeat the Wolf factors—the circumstances in which a stay pending a ruling on a dispositive motion is appropriate—but do not apply them to this case. Defendants also assert that discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive motions and will not cause Plaintiffs to suffer prejudice.
Plaintiffs detail their need for discovery and the ways in which their efforts to conduct discovery have been thwarted. They point out that they named John and Jane Doe Defendants in their Bivens claim because they are unaware of all federal employees who allegedly caused or contributed to Mr. Bradley's death in the U.S. Penitentiary Leavenworth. They first sought that information through a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA), which resulted in a partial release of records. They ultimately filed an administrative claim with the Bureau of Prisons, but obtained no documents in return. Upon filing this civil action, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking limited discovery which would allow them to learn the identities of the Doe Defendants.
As noted above, absent an assertion of immunity, the great weight of authority in this District is against granting a stay of discovery and other pretrial proceedings, even when a dispositive motion is pending. In those instances in which a stay is appropriate, at least one of the following three factors is present: (1) the case is likely to be finally concluded as a result of the ruling, (2) the facts sought through the remaining discovery would not affect the ruling on the pending motion, or (3) discovery on all issues in the case would be wasteful and burdensome.
Although Defendants seek a stay of all discovery because the individual Defendants assert qualified immunity, their motion acknowledges that case law permits discovery limited to determining whether immunity applies. In advance of an order to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference, Plaintiffs moved to conduct such limited discovery, hoping to obtain information that would allow them to amend their complaint and name the relevant federal employees who allegedly caused or contributed to Mr. Bradley's death.
As this chronology demonstrates, Plaintiffs' efforts to conduct discovery have consistently been limited to that necessary to meet an immediate legal challenge. Defendants' motion, however, seeks to continue to prevent Plaintiffs from conducting all discovery. As such, it is overbroad. "In some cases, discovery may be necessary to determine whether the defendants' challenged conduct violated clearly established law and thus, whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity."
Defendants also request a stay of discovery for Plaintiffs' FTCA claims against the United States. In so doing, they acknowledge the standard for obtaining a stay of discovery, i.e., (1) whether the case is likely to be finally concluded via a dispositive motion, (2) the facts sought through discovery would not affect the resolution of a dispositive motion, and (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would be wasteful and burdensome.
As to the first factor, Defendants summarily state that if the pending dispositive motions are granted, the case will be concluded and discovery will be moot. Their argument does not address the likelihood that the dispositive motions will be granted. As to the second factor, Defendants contend that any discovery Plaintiffs might conduct would not affect the resolution of those motions. Plaintiffs vigorously dispute Defendants' position, as evidenced by their motion seeking to defer a ruling on Defendants' dispositive motions until Plaintiffs are permitted to conduct discovery. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have all the documents they need, while Plaintiffs catalog a list of documents they contend are relevant to their claims, none of which they have been permitted to request in discovery. As Plaintiffs point out, no Rule 26 disclosures have been made, nor have they received a description of documents that would be identified in such disclosures. Moreover, it is not Defendants' province to determine whether Plaintiffs possess sufficient information to counter a dispositive motion.
Defendants address the third factor by stating that discovery on the FTCA claim would subject the individual Defendants to respond to discovery requests and participate in depositions before the issue of qualified immunity is resolved. Plaintiffs disagree that the individual Defendants would be burdened, as the written discovery they propose seeks comprehensive records maintained by the facility and the agency. They contend that none of their proposed requests would interfere with the individual Defendants' daily work as medical providers. And in response to Defendants' conclusory statement that a stay of discovery would not cause prejudice to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs candidly acknowledge they cannot specifically point to what prejudice they would suffer because they cannot speak about what they do not know. They do know, however, that they are unable to controvert the evidence Defendants have put forth without discovery.
The Court finds Defendants have not met the factors necessary to obtain a stay of discovery relative to the FTCA claims. Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery regarding facts which may result in them amending their Bivens claims to add or modify allegations and/or add parties Moreover, in a case in which Plaintiffs have been provided no initial disclosures but have only been met with documents submitted against them as part of a dispositive motion, the Court is cognizant that "[a] court abuses its discretion when it stays discovery and prevents a party from having a sufficient opportunity to develop a factual basis for defending against the [dispositive] motion."
Defendants have not clearly shown a compelling reason for the court to issue a stay of all discovery.
