expressly overruling Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 508–09 (5th Cir. 1987) and its progeny
How later courts described this case
- expressly overruling Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 508–09 (5th Cir. 1987) and its progeny
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRADFORD SKINNER CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 20-595-SDD-SDJ
SID J GAUTREAUX, et al.
ORDER
Before the Court are the following two motions: (1) a Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc.
73) filed by Defendant Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, III, in his individual and official capacities; and
(2) a Joint Motion to Continue Settlement Conference (R. Doc. 78) filed by all Parties. In his
Motion, Sheriff Gautreaux seeks a stay of all discovery in this case pending a ruling on his Motion
to Dismiss (R. Doc. 72), in which he asserts a defense of qualified immunity.1 No oppositions to
Sheriff Gautreaux’s Motion have been filed, and the deadline for doing so has passed. Moreover,
Plaintiff Bradford Skinner and Defendants Louisiana Workforce, L.L.C., and Luther Martin filed
Notices stating they do not oppose Sheriff Gautreaux’s Motion to Stay.2 For the reasons set forth
below, Sheriff Gautreaux’s Motion to Stay is granted. Given the stay of discovery in this matter,
the Parties’ Joint Motion also is granted.
The Court turns first to Sheriff Gautreaux’s Motion to Stay. Rule 26(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to issue a protective order after a showing of good cause
“to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement indicates that the party
seeking a protective order has the burden “to show the necessity of its issuance, which
1 R. Doc. 73 at 1.
2 R. Docs. 74 and 75.
contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and
conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int’l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting U.S. v.
Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1978)).
“Trial courts possess broad discretion to supervise discovery.” Landry v. Air Line Pilots
Ass’n Int’l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 n.114 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). “A trial court
has broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may
dispose of the case are determined.” Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987) (citations
omitted).
“The qualified immunity defense affords government officials not just immunity from
liability, but immunity from suit.” Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-26 (1985)). Qualified immunity shields government
officials from individual liability for performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct
violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
The Fifth Circuit recently clarified that all discovery involving a defendant raising the
defense of qualified immunity must be stayed until resolution of the defense of qualified immunity:
The Supreme Court has now made clear that a plaintiff asserting constitutional
claims against an officer must survive the motion to dismiss (and the qualified
immunity defense) without any discovery. Our prior decisions to the contrary are
overruled.
Carswell v. Camp, 37 F.4th 1062, 1066 (5th Cir. 2022) (expressly overruling Lion Boulos v.
Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 508–09 (5th Cir. 1987) and its progeny). In Carswell, the Fifth Circuit
concluded that a district court abused its discretion by deferring its ruling on a motion to dismiss
on qualified immunity grounds and subjecting the public official defendants to discovery on the
plaintiff’s Monell claims, which created an undue burden in light of increased litigation costs and
complications caused by bifurcated discovery. Carswell, 37 F.4th at 1068-69. The Fifth Circuit
also expressly held that the required stay of discovery is not limited to claims to which the defense
of qualified immunity is raised. Id. at 1068.
In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit highlighted the Supreme Court’s concerns about the burdens
of litigation imposed on public officials. Id. It also noted that these same burdens would be present
if the Court allowed discovery to proceed against defendants in different capacities or against co-
defendants that make no claim for qualified immunity:
It is no answer to these concerns to say that discovery for petitioners can be deferred
while pretrial proceedings continue for other defendants. It is quite likely that, when
discovery as to the other parties proceeds, it would prove necessary for petitioners
and their counsel to participate in the process to ensure the case does not develop
in a misleading or slanted way that causes prejudice to their position. Even if
petitioners are not yet themselves subject to discovery orders, then, they would not
be free from the burdens of discovery.
Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 685-86 (2009)). “In other words, the Court ruled out
even ‘minimally intrusive discovery’ against official defendants before a ruling that plaintiff had
met his burden to overcome the qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage.” Id. (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686).
Here, Sheriff Gautreaux has filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint, in which he asserts, inter alia, a defense of qualified immunity.3 Based on
clear Fifth Circuit precedent, the Court finds that discovery in this matter should be stayed until
the pending Motion to Dismiss is resolved.
Turning now to the Joint Motion to Continue Settlement Conference, the Parties therein
jointly move to continue the settlement conference currently scheduled for November 17, 2022.
Per the Parties, “[i]n light of the newly-added claims [in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint]
3 R. Doc. 72-1 at 13-16.
and the pending motions [to dismiss and to stay] in response, the parties agree that a settlement
conference at this juncture is premature.”4 Based on the Parties’ representations and in light of
this Court’s stay of discovery in this matter, the Court will continue the November 17, 2022
settlement conference.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 73), filed by Defendant
Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, III, is GRANTED, and discovery is STAYED until further order of the
Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon a Ruling by the District Judge on Sheriff
Gautreaux’s pending Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 72), the Parties shall contact the undersigned as
soon as possible for the issuance of a new Scheduling Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Settlement
Conference (R. Doc. 78) is GRANTED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 7, 2022.
SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4 R. Doc. 78 at 2.