Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KRISTY SMITH CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-2463

c/w 26-89

JEFFERSON PARISH, ET AL. SECTION: D (1)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Defendant Sheriff

Joseph Lopinto.1 Plaintiff Kristy Smith opposes the Motion.2 After careful

consideration of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the

Court GRANTS the Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3

This consolidated matter arises from allegations regarding Defendants’ alleged

treatment of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s children, who attended schools that are part of

the Jefferson Parish Public School System.4 Sheriff Joseph Lopinto, III, was named

as a Defendant in each of the matters.5 In response to Plaintiff’s Complaints, Sheriff

Lopinto filed Motions to Dismiss each action, invoking the defense of qualified

immunity.6

1 R. Doc. 59.

2 R. Doc. 65.

3 The Court set out the factual and procedural background of this consolidated matter in its prior Order

and Reasons regarding Defendant Sheriff Lopinto’s Motion to Set Aside Default (R. Doc. 55). The Court

incorporates that background here by reference and recites the background only as it relates to the

present Motion.

4 R. Doc. 7; see also R. Doc. 1 in Case No. 26-cv-89.

5 Id.

6 R. Docs. 56 and 58.

Sheriff Lopinto then filed the instant Motion to Stay Discovery.7 Sheriff

Lopinto states that “the jurisprudence of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit establishes that defendants shall not be required to participate in

discovery when qualified immunity is asserted in a motion to dismiss” and thus

requests that this Court stay discovery until the Court issues an order on his pending

Motion to Dismiss.8 Further, Sheriff Lopinto argues that “this limit on discovery is

not confined to the parties asserting the defense of qualified immunity; it extends to

all defendants.”9 In summary, Sheriff Lopinto urges that “considering the invocation

of qualified immunity, … no defendant herein should be required to participate in the

discovery process, and no scheduling deadlines requiring participation in discovery

should be imposed, until the qualified immunity issue is decided.”10

Plaintiff Kristy Smith responds that the Sheriff Lopinto is misapplying Fifth

Circuit case law “by attempting to extend an individual immunity defense to shield

municipal entities—specifically Sheriff Lopinto in his official capacity and the

Jefferson Parish School Board—from producing pre-existing, objective public

records.”11 Furthermore, Plaintiff urges that “[s]taying discovery as to the Jefferson

Parish School Board and Sheriff Lopinto in his official capacity improperly extends

an individual defense to institutional defendants who have no legal right to assert

it.”12 Plaintiff contends that the evidence sought consists of “pre-existing, objective

7 R. Doc. 59.

8 Id. at pp. 1-2.

9 R. Doc. 59-1 at p. 2 (citing Miller v. LeBlanc, 2022 WL 17490971 at *4 (M.D. La. Dec. 7, 2022)).

10 Id. at p. 3.

11 R. Doc. 65 at pp. 1-2.

12 Id. at p. 2.

public records” and that disclosing such files held by the Defendant agencies “imposes

zero personal litigation burden on individual deputies and falls outside the intrusive,

officer-directed discovery prohibited under” Fifth Circuit law.13 In the alternative,

Plaintiff seeks a limited, tailored production of certain body-worn camera footage and

the names and badge numbers of certain law enforcement personnel relevant to the

alleged incidents at issue.14

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

“Trial courts possess broad discretion to supervise discovery.”15 Further,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits courts to issue an order limiting or

prohibiting discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

oppression, or undue burden or expense” upon a showing of good cause.16

In the present case, Defendant Sheriff Lopinto has raised the defense of

qualified immunity in his pre-answer Motions to Dismiss.17 The Fifth Circuit has

emphasized that the defense of qualified immunity “affords government officials not

just immunity from liability, but immunity from suit.”18 In Carswell v. Camp, the

Fifth Circuit clarified that a plaintiff asserting constitutional claims against an

officer claiming qualified immunity “must survive the motion to dismiss without any

discovery.”19 Furthermore, the stay of discovery “is not limited to claims to which the

13 Id. at pp. 2-3.

14 Id. at p. 3.

15 Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 at n. 114 (5th Cir. 1990), opinion

modified on denial of reh'g (Apr. 27, 1990).

16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

17 R. Docs. 56-58.

18 Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525–

26, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)).

19 54 F.4th 307, 311 (5th Cir. 2022) (emphasis in original).

defense of qualified immunity is raised.”20 While Plaintiff contends that the evidence

sought consists of “pre-existing, objective public records” and such discovery does not

burden Sheriff Lopinto,21 Fifth Circuit jurisprudence expressly precludes any

discovery against a defendant who asserts qualified immunity before resolution of the

motion asserting the immunity defense.22 Because binding Fifth Circuit precedent

unequivocally forecloses discovery against a defendant who has asserted the defense

of qualified immunity regarding a claim asserted against him unless and until a

plaintiff’s claims survive a motion to dismiss based upon the defendant’s assertion of

qualified immunity, the Court must stay all discovery relating to any claim asserted

against Defendant Sheriff Joseph Lopinto, III.23

Sheriff Lopinto also moves to stay discovery against all Defendants in the

consolidated action.24 The Fifth Circuit also noted that the burden of discovery on a

defendant asserting qualified immunity would persist if a court allowed discovery to

proceed against co-defendants who do not assert 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

20 Nevarez v. Coleman, No. CV 21-1855, 2023 WL 5034645, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 2023) (Papillion, J.).

21 Id. at pp. 2-3.

22 Carswell, 54 F.4th at 311.

23 Id. at 312–13 (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law,

a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of

discovery.”) (citation modified); see also Cobbins v. Graham, No. CV 21-155-JWD-EWD, 2022 WL

2663852, at *2 (M.D. La. July 11, 2022) (“Carswell conclusively establishes that all discovery must be

stayed pending resolution of a qualified immunity defense raised in a motion to dismiss.”)

24 R. Doc. 59-1 at pp. 2-3 (citing Miller v. LeBlanc, 2022 WL 17490971 at *4 (M.D. La. Dec. 7, 2022)

(staying all discovery in a matter because “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”)).

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.”5

The Court finds good cause to stay all discovery in this matter until Sheriff Lopinto’s

Motions to Dismiss are resolved. The Court finds that permitting discovery to proceed

against Sheriff Lopinto’s Co-Defendants would potentially prejudice and unduly

burden Sheriff Lopinto, who currently asserts that he is immune from suit due to

qualified immunity.Ӣ

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery?’ is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery in the consolidated case is

STAYED until the Court rules on Sheriff Lopinto’s Motions to Dismiss.?°

New Orleans, Louisiana, September 2, 2026.

WENDY B. VI fi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 Carswell, 54 F.4th at 313 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 685-86 (2009)).

26 See Nevarez, 2023 WL 50346465 at *4 (finding “it very unlikely that discovery could proceed in [that]

particular action against the remaining Defendants without potentially prejudicing and unduly

burdening the Movants.”); see also Tesla, Inc. v. Louisiana Auto. Dealers Ass'n, No. CV 22-2982, 2025

WL 744151, at *6 (E.D. La. Mar. 7, 2025) (“District courts within the Fifth Circuit interpret Carswell to

suggests that there are few, if any, situations where discovery even as to co-defendants not raising

qualified immunity should be allowed to proceed.”) Gnternal quotations omitted) (citation modified).

27 R. Doe. 59.

28 R. Docs. 56 and 58.