The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CARLOS LAMPLEY (#445179) CIVIL ACTION NO.
VERSUS 17-621-SDD-EWD
J. BROWN, ET AL.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Stay Discovery (“Motion”) filed on
behalf of the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison (“EBRPP”) and Johnny Scott, Defendants.1 The
motion is not opposed.
The Court has considered the Motion and accompanying Memorandum in Support and
finds that the defendants are entitled to the relief requested. The pending Motion to Dismiss2 raises
various issues including whether Plaintiff’s Complaint is sufficient to overcome the defense of
qualified immunity.3 The Motion to Dismiss could be dispositive of the case against these
Defendants. In addition, where the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, discovery is
not permitted to proceed until the court finds that Plaintiff’s pleadings are sufficient to overcome
such a defense and the court finds that discovery is necessary on the issue of qualified immunity.4
1 R. Doc. 24.
2 R. Doc. 23. Another Motion to Dismiss was filed by Defendant J. Brown, but J. Brown is not a movant in the instant
Motion.
3 See, e.g., R. Doc. 23-1, p. 9.
4 Zapata v. Melson, 750 F.3d 481, 485 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Thus, a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity
must plead specific facts that both allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
harm he has alleged and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” “After the district court finds
a plaintiff has so pleaded, if the court remains ‘unable to rule on the immunity defense without further clarification of
the facts,’ it may issue a discovery order ‘narrowly tailored to uncover only those facts needed to rule on the immunity
claim.’”) (Internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, the Court finds that these defendants should not be burdened with the time and
expense of discovery until the pending Rule 12 motion is resolved. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery5 be and is hereby GRANTED.
Discovery in this proceeding is hereby stayed pending a ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss6
filed in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that once a ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss7 is
filed in this matter, the parties are authorized to re-commence discovery without any further Order
from the Court. The parties shall have a period of ninety (90) days from the date of the Court’s
ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to complete all discovery, and one hundred and twenty (120) days
from the date of the Court’s ruling to file substantive cross-motions for summary judgment.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 28, 2019.
S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5 R. Doc. 24.
6 R. Doc. 23.
7 R. Doc. 23.