The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ARTHUR HUGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:22-cv-1183-WFJ-TGW
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MANATEE
COUNTY, a Florida Governmental Entity;
MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
a Florida Governmental Entity; CYNTHIA
SAUNDERS, in her official capacity and
also, individually; PAUL DAMICO, in his
official capacity and also, individually;
MIKE BARBER, in his official capacity and
also, individually; and ADAM WOLLARD,
in his official capacity and also, individually,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Cynthia Saunders’
opposed Motion to Stay Discovery and For an Extension of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff’s Discovery, Dkt. 45. Upon consideration, the Court grants Ms. Saunders’
motion.
Ms. Saunders specifically requests a stay of discovery as to Plaintiff’s First
Set of Interrogatories pending the resolution of her pending Motion to Dismiss,
Dkt. 42, and seeks a thirty-day extension to respond to those interrogatories upon
the issuance of a final ruling from this Court or the Eleventh Circuit as to her
affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Dkt. 45 at 7−8. In addition to raising an
issue of qualified immunity, Ms. Saunders’ Motion to Dismiss asserts that Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim and failed to comply with pleading requirements. Dkt. 42
at 1.
A party moving for a stay of discovery must show good cause and
reasonableness. McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (citation
omitted). Such motions are not favored, however, as discovery delays can create
case management concerns. Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla.
1997). In deciding whether to stay discovery, a court must balance the harm caused
by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the pending motion to dismiss
will be granted and eliminate the need for such discovery. Id. (citation omitted). To
do so, a court must “take a preliminary peek” at the dispositive motion’s merits to
see if it appears “clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Land v. James,
No. 3:21-cv-389-BJD-JRK, 2021 WL 3268951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 30, 2021)
(quoting Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652−53).
Without expressing any opinion as to whether Ms. Saunders’ pending
Motion to Dismiss will ultimately be meritorious, the Court finds that the motion is
not meritless and would dispose of all claims against her if granted. The Court also
finds that a limited stay of discovery pending the resolution of Ms. Saunders’
Motion to Dismiss would cause minimal harm to Plaintiff, as the requested stay
only applies to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Ms. Saunders. There
remains ample time for such discovery in this case, as the present discovery cut-off
is May 1, 2023. Dkt. 31.
Additionally, the Court recognizes that Ms. Saunders’ Motion to Dismiss
asserts that five of the nine counts brought against her are barred by the doctrine of
qualified immunity. Dkt. 42 at 5−10. The Supreme Court has repeatedly “stressed
the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest stage in litigation.”
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 231−31 (2009) (internal quotes omitted). The
purpose of qualified immunity is to ensure “that insubstantial claims against
government officials be resolved prior to discovery[.]” Anderson v. Creighton, 483
U.S. 635, 640 n.23 (1987). Accordingly, where a defendant raises the affirmative
defense of qualified immunity, district courts should stay discovery until that
immunity issue is resolved. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)
(citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that a limited stay of discovery is
warranted. Ms. Saunders’ Motion to Stay Discovery and For an Extension of Time
to Respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery, Dkt. 45, is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed
as to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Ms. Saunders pending resolution of
Ms. Saunders’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 42. Ms. Saunders will have thirty (30)
days to respond to those interrogatories upon the issuance of a final ruling on the
issue of her qualified immunity from this Court or the Eleventh Circuit, as
applicable.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 12, 2022.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Counsel of Record