Osceola v. Forsyth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

TODD KEVIN OSCEOLA, JESSICA

OSCEOLA,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:24-cv-1131-SPC-KCD

v.

THOMAS FORSYTH, AN

INDIVIDUAL,

SUPERINTENDENT, NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE; PEDRO RAMOS,

AN INDIVIDUAL,

SUPERINTENDENT OF

FLAMINGO AND DRY

TORGUGAS NATIONAL PARK

AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE; AND U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unlawfully deprived them of property

on the Big Cypress National Preserve. They bring claims for various

Constitutional violations. (See Doc. 21.)1

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have

been omitted in this and later citations.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint based on sovereign and

qualified immunity. (Doc. 24.) They now ask the Court to stay discovery while

their motion awaits disposition. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiffs have no opposition to the

request. (Doc. 27.) For the reasons below, the motion is granted.

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may, for good

cause, issue a protective order staying discovery pending resolution of a

dispositive motion.” Caicedo v. DeSantis, No. 6:23-CV-2303-JSS-RMN, 2024

WL 1579675, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2024). But staying discovery is the

exception, not the rule. See Middle District Discovery Handbook (2021) at 5.

The pendency of a dispositive motion “will not justify a unilateral motion to

stay discovery pending [its] resolution.” Id.

Rather, “a stay should be granted only where the motion to dismiss

appears, upon preliminary review, to be clearly meritorious and truly case

dispositive.” Garvin v. Effingham Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. CV423-337, 2024 WL

2092990, at *1 (S.D. Ga. May 7, 2024). This is because “[d]elays in discovery

can create case management problems which impede the Court’s responsibility

to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and

problems.” Caicedo, 2024 WL 1579675, at *1.

Also relevant here, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that claims of

immunity often call for protection from discovery because subjecting officials

to traditional discovery for acts where they are immune would undercut the

protection immunity was meant to afford. See Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing,

LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The defense of sovereign or

qualified immunity protects government officials not only from having to stand

trial, but from having to bear the burdens attendant to litigation, including

pretrial discovery.”); Overcash v. Shelnutt, 753 F. App’x 741, 746 (11th Cir.

2018) (“The very purpose of the immunity defenses raised by the judicial and

officer defendants is to protect them from having to bear the burdens attendant

to litigation.”); Howe v. City of Enter., 861 F.8d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2017)

(finding the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered the defendant to

submit a joint discovery plan because a potentially immune defendant should

not be subject to litigation “beyond the point at which immunity is asserted”).

Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss raises serious questions about

the viability of the complaint that must be resolved before they are burdened

with discovery and other pretrial obligations, a stay is appropriate. (Doc. 25.)

If Defendants are indeed entitled to immunity, their motion will dispose of

Plaintiffs’ entire case and moot any discovery.

Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 26, 2025.

Lyte 6 Label

* Waele C. Dudek

United States Magistrate Judge