The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-24604-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
KEVIN BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN S. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants Captain S. Williams and Sergeant
Modley’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Adjudication of Motion to Dismiss,
ECF No. [51] (“Motion to Stay”).1 In the Motion to Stay, Defendants request that the Court enter
an order staying discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF Nos. [34]
& [43] (“Motions to Dismiss”). The Court has reviewed the Motion to Stay, the record in this case,
the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to
Stay is granted.
Pro se Plaintiff initiated this action on November 5, 2020, ECF No. [1] (“Complaint”),
which alleges that Defendants violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by retaliating
against him because of his protected speech. In the Motions to Dismiss, Defndants seek dismissal
of Plaintiff’s Complaint on a number of grounds, including failure to state a claim and qualified
imminuty. See generally ECF Nos. [34] & [43]. Under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
and the law of this Circuit, the Court “has broad discretion to stay discovery pending decision on
1 Plaintiff Kevin Brown (“Plaintiff”) was given the opportunity to respond to the Motion, but has failed to
do so.
a dispositive motion.” Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir.
1985). Moreover, a stay is appropriate where a party has asserted qualified immunity as a defense,
because “[t]he defense of sovereign or qualified immunity protects government officials not only
from having to stand trial, but from having to bear the burdens attendant to litigation, including
pretrial discovery.” Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2004)
(citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). “[S]ubjecting officials to trial, traditional
discovery, or both concerning acts for which they are likely immune undercuts the protection from
government disruption which official immunity is supposed to afford.” Elliott v. Perez, 751 F.2d
1472, 1478 (5th Cir. 1985).
The Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the Motions to Dismiss. Pereira v. Regions
Bank, 6:12-CV-1383-ORL-22, 2012 WL 5448191, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2012). “[B]alanc[ing]
the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted
and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery,” Berry v. Canady, No. 2:09-CV-765-FTM-29,
2011 WL 806230, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2011), the Court finds that a stay is appropriate here.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Motion to Stay, ECF No. [51], is GRANTED.
2. All discovery, including scheduled deadlines and hearings, shall be STAYED pending
resolution of the Motions to Dismiss, ECF No. [34] & [43].
3. In light of the Court’s Order, the Notice of Filing Selection of Mediator by the Parties,
ECF No. [54], which requests that the Court designate a Magistrate Judge as a mediator
in this action, is DENIED AS MOOT. Upon the stay being lifted, the Court will enter
an amended Scheduling Order, and the parties may renew their request at that time.
Case No. 20-cv-24604-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 14, 2021.
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record