Filed: Sep. 11, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2015
Summary: RULING ON MOTION TO COMMENCE DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Commence Discovery Disclosures. Record document number 82. The motion is opposed. 1 Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the parties to make their Rule 26(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. disclosures. Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that making disclosures is premature until the district judge rules on the pending motions for more definite statement and disp
Summary: RULING ON MOTION TO COMMENCE DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Commence Discovery Disclosures. Record document number 82. The motion is opposed. 1 Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the parties to make their Rule 26(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. disclosures. Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that making disclosures is premature until the district judge rules on the pending motions for more definite statement and dispo..
More
RULING ON MOTION TO COMMENCE DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Commence Discovery Disclosures. Record document number 82. The motion is opposed.1
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the parties to make their Rule 26(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. disclosures. Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that making disclosures is premature until the district judge rules on the pending motions for more definite statement and dispositive motions.2
Having considered the motion, the defendants' opposition and the plaintiff's reply, and having reviewed the pending motions and the plaintiff's oppositions to them, the court finds that making the Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures is premature. The rulings on the pending motions may result in the plaintiff being required to file an amended complaint which alleges specific facts against each named defendant,3 or dismissal of some defendants or some of the claims on various grounds, e.g. prescription, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and qualified immunity.4 As to the latter, qualified immunity limits access to the discovery process. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that qualified immunity includes immunity from the suit itself. Mitchell v. Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511, (1985). But even when discovery is allowed, it should be tailored specifically to the question of the defendant's qualified immunity. Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427 (5th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff's arguments are unpersuasive. There is no good reason to believe that Glen Ford had no way to know who made the decisions regarding his medical care while he was in prison. This court regularly see suits filed by prisoners regarding the medical care they received, and more often than not those suits name the doctors and other health care providers as defendants. This information likely could have been obtained by Ford in connection with requests for administrative relief regarding any perceived deficient health care filed while he was still in prison. It is appears from the plaintiff's memoranda that she wants broad disclosures, covering nearly 30 years of Ford's incarceration. Plaintiff's request for an order to make Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures is not tailored to addressing the defendants' qualified immunity defense.5
The best course at this time is to await the rulings on the pending motions. Thereafter, the parties and the court will be in a better position to assess (1) whether discovery should be limited to the issue of qualified immunity, as to any defendant whose qualified immunity or other asserted defense is not resolved by a pending motion, (2) the scope of relevant discovery as to the claims against the remaining defendants, (3) and tailoring discovery to such other issues as may be identified in the district judge's rulings.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Commence Discovery Disclosures is denied.
