Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02332/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02332-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rachel Jernigan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kyle Richard, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2332-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Town of Gilbert, Pamela Elliott, David Landgraf and

Randy McLaws’s (the “Town Defendants”) Motion to Stay Discovery (Dkt. # 60). 

Counsel has not yet filed a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, but

seeks a stay of discovery pending the resolution of that, as yet, unfiled motion. Further,

counsel did not consult with opposing counsel to determine, prior to filing their motion,

whether they could mutually agree on a discovery schedule that would prioritize relevant

discovery while minimizing discovery in which the Town Defendants might not have to

participate should its motion for summary judgment be granted. 

The discovery deadline of July 16 looms. Between now and that deadline the parties

will, of necessity, conduct discovery concerning a number of matters in which the Town

Defendants would not otherwise have been required to participate had an early motion for

summary judgment been granted. Even assuming counsel were to file a motion promptly,

the observance of a normal briefing schedule would not result in a decision on the motion

Case 2:08-cv-02332-GMS Document 77 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

until approximately the time of the discovery deadline. Counsel for the Town Defendants

acknowledges that they bring this motion for stay late in the course of the entered discovery

schedule but assert in their Reply that their failure to more timely assert this motion results

in part from their desire to cooperate with the necessary discovery needed by Plaintiff’s

counsel, Plaintiff’s discovery disputes with the Town Defendants and with its co-defendant,

the dilatoriness of Plaintiff’s counsel in seeking reasonable depositions relating to the Town

Defendants’ motion, and the unreasonable positions taken by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Respectfully, the Court observes that even assuming all of the above, nothing

prevented the Town Defendants from filing their qualified immunity motion at an earlier

date. And, if the Town Defendants needed discovery prior to filing its motion beyond the

facts that its own witnesses could have set forth by affidavit, nothing prevented the Town

Defendants from pursuing such discovery early on and filing their motion. As of yet, there

are no facts presented to the Court on which the Court could determine that the Plaintiff’s

claims against the Town Defendants are “insubstantial claims” of the kind that should spare

it from participating in further discovery. Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009).

To stay the action now would require the Court to assume that Plaintiff’s claims are of this

nature. Respectfully, the Court is disinclined to engage in any such assumptions in the

absence of some kind of evidence from which it could draw such conclusions. Further, to

stay the action now would only further delay by four months the discovery schedule for all

parties. All would have to wait in a period of total unproductivity while the Town

Defendants’ motion was filed, briefed and decided. The fact of having the litigation open

and non-functioning would have its costs for all parties, would save the Town Defendants

little, and would cost the other parties much. The Town Defendants’ motion is denied.

Counsel for Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the Motion.

While he presents some basis for his motion, the Court is not convinced that counsel for

Plaintiff has not also contributed to the creation of an unprofessional environment that has

lately taken hold of this litigation. In its discretion, therefore, the Court declines to award

such fees. Accordingly, 

Case 2:08-cv-02332-GMS Document 77 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Town Defendants’ Motion to Stay

Discovery (Dkt. # 60), and denying Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees incurred in

responding to the Motion.

DATED this 15th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02332-GMS Document 77 Filed 04/16/10 Page 3 of 3