The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CORHONDA CORLEY CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 24-812-JWD-SDJ
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH
SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 17) filed by Defendants Sheriff
Sid Gautreaux, III, and Captain Rodney Walker (collectively, “Sheriff Defendants”). In their
Motion, the Sheriff Defendants ask the Court to stay all discovery in this case pending resolution
of the Sheriff Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 7), in which Captain Walker asserts the
defense of qualified immunity.1 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the instant Motion, and the
deadline for doing so has passed.2 As such, the Court considers this Motion unopposed. For the
reasons set forth below, the Sheriff Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery is granted.
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 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)).
1 R. Doc. 17 at 1.
2 See LR 7(f) (“Each respondent opposing a motion shall file a response … within twenty-one days after service of
the motion.”).
“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) (citing
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133
(5th Cir. 1976)).
“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 310-14. 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. at 313.
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.”
Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686).
Here, in the Motion to Dismiss, Captain Walker asserts qualified immunity as a defense to
Plaintiff’s claims.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. See Varnado v. Carboni,
No. 24-133, 2024 WL 4314794 (M.D. La. Sep. 26, 2024).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 17) filed by Defendants
Sheriff Sid Gautreaux, III, and Captain Rodney Walker is GRANTED, and discovery is STAYED
until further order of the Court.
3 R. Doc. 7-1 at 9-13.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon a Ruling by the District Judge on the Sheriff
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 7), the Parties shall contact the undersigned as soon as
possible for the issuance of a new Scheduling Conference Order, if any claims remain.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 6, 2025.
S
SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE