ORDER DENYING IN PART MDOC DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (DE 48)

ANTHONY P. PATTI, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on MDOC Defendants' motion to stay discovery (DE 48), in which they argue that they should not be required to provide discovery "until the threshold question of immunity is resolved by the court" in their pending motion for summary judgment (see DE 28 at 4). Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to the motion to stay, along with a supporting affidavit (DE 50).

While the Court recognizes that a stay should normally be granted while a dispositive motion which would resolve the issue of qualified immunity is pending, a brief review of Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment reveals that, notwithstanding Defendants' characterization, the motion does not actually hinge on qualified immunity. Instead, the motion hinges on the question of "Whodunnit?" In fact, Defendants' summary judgment motion is based entirely on affidavits, which in essence state that Plaintiff has sued the wrong people, because none of these three nurses allegedly had anything to do with the medical treatment at issue in this case (DE 28 at 6). Thus, unlike a dispositive motion which truly hinges on qualified immunity, the summary judgment motion here is not about the reasonableness of Defendants' actions, because the defendants are actually claiming there were no actions, i.e., that they did nothing at all and had no contact with this prisoner. In contrast with other qualified immunity motions, which hinge on legal issues, Defendants' summary judgment motion is at best hinged on only a mixed question of fact and law, and more accurately appears to be based entirely upon an issue of fact, which Defendants' characterize as undisputed.

While this Court acknowledges that the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-819 (1982) held that discovery should normally not be allowed while the issue of qualified immunity is being resolved, it has also stated:

Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 593 n.14 (1998) (internal citations omitted) (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646, n. 6 (1987), Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)); see also Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 597-601.

Here, Plaintiff indicates a need to continue limited discovery with respect to his medical records and the very log books upon which Defendants rely in support of their argument that they had no involvement in the treatment of this particular prisoner. The ongoing discovery which he proposes is limited and reasonable, and if he were to uncover anything helpful through such ongoing discovery prior to this Court's ruling on the pending summary judgment motion, he would be welcome to bring it to the Court's attention through a supplemental submission. "A lawsuit is supposed to be a search for the truth." Metro. Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Emples. & Rest. Emples. Int'l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178 (S.D. N.Y. 2003). It is not about "hiding the ball." While the Court is not inclined to delay its consideration of the pending summary judgment motion to permit a "fishing expedition" by the plaintiff in a fruitless effort to dispute the indisputable, it is also not inclined to deprive him of the opportunity to further develop the record, if possible, on the issue of whether the three nurses in question (Carlson, Haase and O'Connell) were actually involved in the treatment he alleges to have occurred in paragraph 22 of his complaint.

Accordingly, this motion is DENIED, and discovery is left open for the limited purposes described herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.