The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MORIS LACA, individually and as parent )
and next friend of R. LACA and A. LACA, )
minor children; and SUELA TAFANI, )
individually and as parent and next friend )
of R. LACA and A. LACA, minor children, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 22-cv-00366-SEH-SH
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. )
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS )
AFFAIRS; and SCOTT W. JONES, )
Special Agent for the Department of )
Veteran Affairs, )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are the defendants’ separate motions to stay discovery. Because
defendant Scott Jones (“Jones”) has moved to dismiss based, in part, on qualified
immunity, the undersigned finds that a stay is appropriate in this case.
Background
Plaintiffs’ claims relate to the investigation, failed prosecution, and termination of
Moris Laca (“Laca”). According to the Complaint, in early 2020, Jones, a special agent
with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), accused Laca of illegally accessing and
stealing controlled substances from returned mail at the VA facility where Laca worked
as a doctor. (ECF No. 2 ¶ 14.) Laca claims that, as a result, he was suspended from his
position and coerced into surrendering his Drug Enforcement Administration license.
(Id. ¶¶ 15-16.)
Plaintiffs filed suit in 2022, naming as defendants Jones and the United States ex
rel. Department of Veterans Affairs (the “Government”). (ECF No. 2.) Laca asserts claims
for negligence, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of his civil rights. (Id. ¶¶ 39-64.)
Laca’s wife and children have asserted claims for loss of consortium, and his wife has ad-
ditionally asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. ¶¶ 65-78.)
The Government filed an answer on March 10, 2023, and discovery began soon
after. (ECF No. 22 (answer); ECF No. 43-1 (written discovery served in May 2023).)
Several more months passed before Jones was finally located and served. (ECF No. 37.)
Jones appeared in the case on November 2, 2023, and immediately filed a motion
to dismiss, asserting—among other things—that he is entitled to qualified immunity from
suit. (ECF No. 50 & ECF No. 51 at 12.) On November 21, 2023, Jones also filed the current
motion to stay discovery. (ECF No. 66.) That motion has now been referred to the
undersigned. (ECF No. 157.)
In December 2023, the Government filed a post-answer motion to dismiss under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). (ECF No. 78.) Two months later, it also filed a motion to stay
discovery (ECF No. 104), which has now been referred to the undersigned (ECF No. 157).
Analysis
I. Discovery & Qualified Immunity
“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability
for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
(1982)). It is “both a defense to liability and a limited ‘entitlement not to stand trial or
face the other burdens of litigation.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009) (quoting
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). “Because qualified immunity is ‘an im-
munity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability . . . it is effectively lost if a case is
erroneously permitted to go to trial.’” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231 (quoting Mitchell, 472
U.S. at 526); see also Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996) (“the defense is meant
to give government officials a right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid
the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery, as inquiries of this kind can be peculi-
arly disruptive of effective government” (internal quotations and alterations omitted)).
The Supreme Court has “made clear that the ‘driving force’ behind creation of the
qualified immunity doctrine was a desire to ensure that ‘“insubstantial claims” against
government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery.’” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231-32
(quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 n.2 (1987)). “Accordingly, ‘we repeat-
edly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible
stage in litigation.’” Id. at 232 (quoting Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per
curiam)). “Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be
allowed.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. “Decision of this purely legal question permits courts
expeditiously to weed out suits . . . without requiring a defendant who rightly claims qual-
ified immunity to engage in expensive and time consuming preparation to defend the suit
on its merits.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). With these considerations in
mind, “a district court may stay discovery upon the filing of a dispositive motion based on
qualified immunity.” Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134, 1148 (10th Cir. 2014).
When one defendant asserts qualified immunity, the question then becomes
whether the Court should extend the stay to other defendants. In Iqbal, the Supreme
Court did not directly address this issue, considering instead the appropriate standard for
deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 666. In making that
decision, however, the Court considered an argument that Rule 8’s pleading requirements
could be relaxed where the court had been instructed to “cabin discovery in such a way as
to preserve petitioners’ defense of qualified immunity as much as possible” prior to
summary judgment. Id. at 684 (internal quotations omitted). The Court rejected this
approach, first noting that the question presented by a motion to dismiss “does not turn
on the controls placed upon the discovery process.” Id. at 684-85. The Court also offered
thoughts on the “thrust” of the qualified immunity doctrine, which is “to free officials from
the concerns of litigation, including ‘avoidance of disruptive discovery.’” Id. at 685
(quoting Siegert, 500 U.S. at 236).
It is no answer to these concerns to say that discovery for petitioners [the
immunity-asserting defendants] 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 685-86.
Following Iqbal, numerous courts have found it appropriate to stay discovery for
all defendants when one defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g.,
Lucero v. City of Aurora, No. 123CV00851GPGSBP, 2023 WL 5957126, at *3-6 (D. Colo.
Sept. 13, 2023) (“[i]n Iqbal, the Supreme Court made clear that discovery must be stayed
upon assertion of qualified immunity, even if there are claims (or defendants) that are not
subject to a qualified immunity defense; otherwise, the defense is lost”);1 Tenorio v.
Pitzer, No. CV 12-1295 MCA/KBM, 2013 WL 12178001, at *3 (D.N.M. July 27, 2013)
(“after Iqbal, the law is clear that discovery should be stayed upon assertion of qualified
1 The court in Lucero continued: “even if the language in Iqbal were [dicta], this court
would be ‘bound by Supreme Court dicta almost as firmly as by the Court’s outright
holdings, particularly when the dicta is recent and not enfeebled by later statements.’” Id.
at *5 (quoting Indep. Inst. v. Williams, 812 F.3d 787, 798 n.13 (10th Cir. 2016)).
immunity, even for those defendants not asserting the defense”); Silversmith v. Martin,
No. CV 20-566 WJ/GJF, 2021 WL 1200602, at *2 (D.N.M. Mar. 30, 2021) (“once a single
defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity in a dispositive motion, discovery for all
defendants should generally be stayed”).2
While discovery should be avoided once a qualified immunity defense is raised,
“there are some circumstances when narrow discovery is permitted.” Martin v. Cnty. of
Santa Fe, 626 F. App’x 736, 740 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished).3 “If . . . the district court
determines it cannot rule on the immunity defense without clarifying the relevant facts,
the court may issue a discovery order narrowly tailored to uncover only those facts needed
to rule on the immunity claim.” Stonecipher, 759 F.3d at 1149 (internal quotations omit-
ted); see also Est. of Thakuri, 2019 WL 6828306, at *4 (contemplating “partial discovery”
when “there is a serious concern that relevant information may be lost if limited discovery
is not permitted, or where there is no direct connection between the entity and the par-
ticular individual asserting immunity”). At the motion to dismiss stage, however, “it is
the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint that is scrutinized for ‘objective legal
reasonableness.’” Behrens, 516 U.S. at 309.
2 This does not mean the Court is necessarily required to stay discovery for all defendants
when one party raises qualified immunity. Est. of Thakuri v. City of Westminster, No.
19-CV-02412-DDD-KLM, 2019 WL 6828306, at *4 (D. Colo. Dec. 12, 2019) (noting only
“a strong presumption in favor of a stay as to discovery from entity defendants when an
individual defendant has asserted qualified immunity”); see also Cruz v. City of Deming,
687 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1167 (D.N.M. 2023) (“Iqbal . . . never purported to alter long-
standing precedent that provides a district court considerable discretion in controlling
the scope, timing, and methodology of discovery so as to mandate a global stay of
discovery” (collecting cases)).
3 Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but they may be cited for their persuasive
value. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
II. A Stay in this Case
This court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Here, the under-
signed is convinced a stay of discovery is necessary for all parties. Discovery between
Plaintiffs and the Government has been contentious, with both parties engaging in
extensive motion practice. This has, at times, resulted in Jones’ counsel responding to
motions or attending hearings to protect Jones’ position. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 108 & 131
(opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to unseal discovery provided by the Government); ECF No.
127 (attending hearing on same).) Plaintiffs also have made clear their intention to
depose Jones. (See, e.g., ECF No. 29-2.) Some of this discovery undoubtedly would con-
tinue regardless of Jones’ status as a defendant. However, Jones’ interests as a defendant
facing liability necessarily differ from his interests as a third-party witness, requiring
different considerations and, perhaps, different expenditure of resources. All indications
are that, absent a stay, Jones will lose the protection from the burdens of litigation that
his alleged defense was intended to offer.
The Court further finds no basis for an exception to the stay for limited discovery.
Plaintiffs do not argue additional discovery is necessary to respond to Jones’ motion to
dismiss—indeed, Plaintiffs have already responded (ECF No. 67)—and the focus of the
district judge’s analysis will be on conduct alleged in the complaint.
The Court finds a stay of discovery pending the district judge’s resolution of Jones’
motion to dismiss to be proper and appropriate in this case.
III. Motions Rendered Moot by Stay
Because the Court is staying all discovery pending resolution of Jones’ assertion of
qualified immunity, it finds the Government’s separate motion to stay discovery (ECF No.
104) and Plaintiff's second motion to compel (ECF No. 154) to be moot at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF
No. 66) is GRANTED. Discovery in this case is stayed pending the resolution of Defend-
ant Scott Jones’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 51).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States of America’s Motion to Stay
Discovery (ECF No. 104) and Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Discovery Reponses
from the Defendant, United States of America (ECF No. 154) are denied as moot, without
prejudice to their reassertion when the stay granted in this motion expires.
ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2024. .
lg SS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT