The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MAURICE WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-119-BAJ-RLB
TOWN OF CLINTON, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Officer Charles Brown’s Motion to Stay Discovery. (R.
Doc. 15). The deadline to file an opposition has expired. See LR 7(f). Accordingly, the motion is
unopposed.
I. Background
Maurice Williams (“Plaintiff”) commenced this civil rights action seeking recovery under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, naming as defendants Officer Charles Brown and the Town of
Clinton. (R. Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested by Officer Brown for failure to appear
in court and for allowing his dog to roam free. (R. Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that during the
arrest Officer Brown “needlessly pepper sprayed” and “beat” him. (R. Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff
brings claims for false arrest, unreasonable seizure, and excessive force under federal law, and
claims for battery, defamation, and malicious prosecution under Louisiana law. (R. Doc. 1 at 3-
6).
Both the Town of Clinton and Officer Brown have filed motions to dismiss asserting that
Officer Brown is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Section 1983 claim. (R. Docs.
10, 14). Plaintiff has opposed these motions. (R. Docs. 20, 21). These motions remain pending
before the district judge.
On May 5, 2023, Officer Brown filed this Motion to Stay Discovery in light of the
foregoing qualified immunity defense. (R. Doc. 15). Plaintiff did not oppose this motion. LR
7(f).
The Court cancelled a scheduling conference set for May 25, 2023 in light of the pending
Motion to Stay Discovery. (R. Doc. 19).
II. Law and Analysis
A. Legal Standards
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the 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 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 United States v. Garret, 571 F.2d 302, 3026 (5th Cir.
1990) (citation omitted).
“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).
“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 has 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 claiming [qualified immunity] must survive the motion
to dismiss without any discovery.
Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 311 (5th Cir. 2022). 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. Id. at 310-314. The Fifth Circuit expressly held
that the required stay of discovery is not limited to claims to which the defense of qualified
immunity is raised. Id.
In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit highlighted the Supreme Court’s concerns about the
burdens of litigation imposed on public officials. 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. at 313 (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.” Carswell, 54 F.4th at 313 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686).
Consistent with Carswell, the undersigned has stayed all discovery where a defendant has
alleged qualified immunity and there was no practical manner to allow discovery to proceed
against a co-defendant that has not raised a defense of qualified immunity without prejudicing
the defendants who have raised the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Miller v. LeBlanc,
No. 21-353-BAJ-RLB, 2022 WL 17490971 (M.D. La. Dec. 7, 2022).
B. Analysis
Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, the Court finds it appropriate to stay
all discovery until resolution of the pending Motions to Dismiss.
The Carswell decision forecloses any discovery involving Officer Brown while his
qualified immunity defense remains pending. The Court must stay all discovery with respect to
this defendant, who has raised the defense of qualified immunity, including discovery pertaining
to claims to which the qualified immunity defense does not apply, because such discovery would
present an undue burden to Officer Brown. Carswell, 54 F.4th at 313-314. Furthermore, the
Court finds no plausible manner in which discovery could proceed against the remaining
defendant, the Town of Clinton, without implicating, and unduly burdening, Officer Brown.
Given the allegations in this action, as well as the Fifth Circuit’s directives in Carswell,
the Court finds it appropriate to stay all discovery in this action until resolution of the pending
Motion to Dismiss. Even if such discovery is not completely foreclosed by Carswell, the Court
finds good cause pursuant to Rule 26(c) to stay all discovery given the undue burden that such
discovery would impose on Officer Brown while his qualified immunity defenses are pending.
III. Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Officer Brown’s Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc.
15) is GRANTED, and discovery is STAYED until further order of the Court. The parties shall
contact the undersigned after the resolution of the Motions to Dismiss (R. Docs. 10, 14) for the
issuance of a new scheduling conference order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 1, 2023.
s
______________________________________
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE