Filed: Nov. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2016
Summary: DECISION and ORDER LESLIE G. FOSCHIO , Magistrate Judge . In this action based on Plaintiffs' remaining promissory estoppel and RICO claims arising from Plaintiffs' `pay-to-play' allegations against Defendants City of Buffalo ("the City" or "City"), Brown, Casey and Smith (sued in their official capacities as mayor, deputy mayor and common councilmember, respectively) in connection with a failed low-income housing project, Defendants City, Brown and Smith ("Moving Defendants"), move for a p
Summary: DECISION and ORDER LESLIE G. FOSCHIO , Magistrate Judge . In this action based on Plaintiffs' remaining promissory estoppel and RICO claims arising from Plaintiffs' `pay-to-play' allegations against Defendants City of Buffalo ("the City" or "City"), Brown, Casey and Smith (sued in their official capacities as mayor, deputy mayor and common councilmember, respectively) in connection with a failed low-income housing project, Defendants City, Brown and Smith ("Moving Defendants"), move for a pr..
More
DECISION and ORDER
LESLIE G. FOSCHIO, Magistrate Judge.
In this action based on Plaintiffs' remaining promissory estoppel and RICO claims arising from Plaintiffs' `pay-to-play' allegations against Defendants City of Buffalo ("the City" or "City"), Brown, Casey and Smith (sued in their official capacities as mayor, deputy mayor and common councilmember, respectively) in connection with a failed low-income housing project, Defendants City, Brown and Smith ("Moving Defendants"), move for a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), staying further discovery, including a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the City (Dkt. 161), pending disposition of Moving Defendants' recently filed summary judgment motion (Dkt. 152) asserting legislative and qualified immunity and New York state substantive law ("Defendants' motion"). Defendant Casey, who now has separate counsel, has not joined in the summary judgment motion or Moving Defendants' motion. Defendant Buffalo Urban Renewal Agency, which also has moved for summary judgment (Dkt. 165), joins in Moving Defendants' motion.
It is well-established that the purpose of immunity, i.e., even if a party has engaged in actionable misconduct, the party is immune from both suit and liability, is to insulate a defendant from the expense and inconvenience associated with litigation of claims for which a defendant may, under applicable law, be immune. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 (1982). Courts are therefore admonished not to proceed with discovery in a pending motion until an issue of immunity has been resolved. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 653 n. 5 (1987) ("`until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed'") (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19).1 Here, whether Defendants' motion to stay further discovery has, as Plaintiffs contend, been waived, Dkt. 171 at 6-7, through Defendants' arguable tardiness in bringing such motion, is an argument to be addressed by Judge Skretny before whom Moving Defendants' summary judgment is pending. Further, if Plaintiffs determine further discovery, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), including, for example, obtaining Casey and other City officials' affidavits or depositions, is necessary to oppose Moving Defendants' summary judgment motion, such request must also be directed to Judge Skretny. Accordingly, Defendants' motion should be GRANTED.2
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion (Dkt. 161) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
