Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ELAINE R. SMITH,

Guardian for Thomas K. Irwin,

a Protected Person,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:23-cv-365

vs.

MIAMI VALLEY HOSPITAL, et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman

Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) GRANTING, PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT’S MANDATE IN

SMITH V. MIAMI VALLEY HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

DISCOVERY PENDING A RULING ON THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 37); AND (2) STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING A DECISION

ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 68)

______________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the Sixth Circuit’s mandate in Smith v. Miami Valley Hospital, the Court

GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery while the motion for summary judgment,

which raises qualified immunity, is under consideration. Doc. No. 37; 172 F.4th 945, 949 (6th

Cir. 2026) (“When the district court is ‘faced with a motion based on qualified immunity,’ it cannot

‘avoid ruling on the issue’ by simply ordering further discovery”) (quoting Everson v. Leis, 556

F.3d 484, 492 (6th Cir. 2009)); see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (“Until this

threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed”); see also Summers v.

Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 886 (6th Cir. 2004) (“The purpose of a qualified immunity defense is not only

protection from civil damages but protection from the rigors of litigation itself, including the

potential disruptiveness of discovery”); Skousen v. Brighton High School, 305 F.3d 520, 527 (6th

Cir. 2022) (“Rather than dismiss the [summary judgment] motion because discovery was not

complete, the district court was required to determine—prior to permitting further discovery—

whether [Plaintiff’s] complaint alleged the violation of a constitutional right at all, and if so,

whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation…Only then, and only

on a finding that material facts were in dispute, was the court at liberty to hold the [summary

judgment] motion in abeyance pending discovery”).

As such, further discovery in this case is STAYED pending the Court’s decision on the

motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 68. The Court will rule on the motion for summary

judgment once the parties have fully briefed it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 11, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman

Hon. Michael J. Newman

United States District Judge