The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ERIC COURTNEY, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-280-BAJ-RLB
BLAKE CAVALIER, ET AL.
ORDER
This Order is issued sua sponte.
In this action, Eric Courtney and Sarah Courtney (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek recovery
from the defendants Officer Blake Cavalier, the City of Walker, and Police Chief David Addison
for alleged civil rights violations. (R. Doc. 1). In pertinent part, Plaintiffs seek recovery from
Officer Cavalier pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to the alleged unlawful arrest and use
of excessive force when he responded to a call for assistance regarding the drowning of
Plaintiffs’ son.
On May 20, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting, among other things,
that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to overcome Officer Cavalier’s defense of
qualified immunity for the false arrest and excessive force claims. (R. Doc. 12). The motion
remains pending before the district judge.
On May 29, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Status Report. (R. Doc. 13). Defendants state
that they object to discovery under the resolution of the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion. (R. Doc.
13 at 12). Plaintiffs object to any stay of discovery, noting that Defendants have asserted in their
Motion to Dismiss that other police officers present have not been identified and that body cam
video would identify any other officers responding to the incident.
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 in a motion to dismiss 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).
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds it appropriate to issue a stay of discovery in
this action pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. Given the assertion of the qualified
immunity defense, the Court must stay all discovery with respect to all named defendants,
including discovery pertaining to claims to which the qualified immunity defense does not apply,
because such discovery would present an undue burden to Officer Cavalier. Carswell, 54 F.4th at
313-314.
The Court notes that Defendants remain under an obligation to preserve relevant
evidence, including any body cam footage from the date of the incident.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that discovery is STAYED until further order of the Court. The
Scheduling Conference set for June 12, 2025 is CANCELLED. The parties shall contact the
undersigned’s chambers upon resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss. (R. Doc. 12).
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 5, 2025.
S
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE