UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20-cv-04698

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

DEFENDANT EDLER'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

PENDING DECISION ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE

COMES NOW Defendant Rayme Edler, M.D. ("Dr. Edler"), through her

undersigned counsel, who appears herein solely for this limited purpose, and files

this Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on Qualified Immunity Defense and

states:

1. Plaintiff, Mathew Selover, filed a five (5) count Complaint in the

Circuit Court in and for Escambia County, Florida, on January 17, 2020. 

2. Plaintiff served Defendant Edler on February 11, 2020.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 6
3. The case was removed to Federal Court by Dr. Edler on March 11,

2020.

4. On Friday, March 13, 2020, Plaintiff Selover filed and served written

discovery on Dr. Edler, including Requests for Production of Documents and

Interrogatories.

5. Pursuant to Rules 33 & 34, Fed. R. Civ. P., Dr. Edler must respond

to such discovery within thirty (30) days, making her responses due on or before

April 13, 2020.

6. Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel is pressing for dates to conduct a Rule

26(f) conference to discuss discovery deadlines and set a time for submission of

Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures.

7. Dr. Edler's position in this case is that she is a municipal employee

acting in the course and scope of her duties as Escambia County Medical Director. 

As such, she is entitled to qualified immunity for her actions. Dr. Edler has a

Motion to Dismiss in process which will be filed in response to the Complaint by

the Court's April 13, 2020, deadline.

8. As will be discussed in the memorandum below, qualified immunity is

not just immunity from liability, but immunity from suit and all the trappings of

litigation, including discovery.

- 2 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 6
9. Dr. Edler believes that all discovery, including the pending RFPs,

Interrogatories, and Rule 26 conferences and disclosures are currently premature

and should be stayed until the Court determines she is not entitled to qualified

immunity.

10. Furthermore, undesigned counsel will be filing a motion to withdraw

or substitute as counsel for Defendant Dr. Edler, in the immediate future and will

be requesting an extension of time for new counsel to become familiar with the case.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Edler respectfully requests the Court enter an order

staying all discovery until the Court rules on Dr. Edler's impending Motion to

Dismiss and the claims of qualified immunity therein.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Dr. Edler is the Escambia County, Florida, Medical Director. She is alleged

to have violated Plaintiff's constitution rights in the execution of her duties as

Medical Director. Government officials performing discretionary functions,

generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

person would have known. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 565 (1978);

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 322 (1975).

- 3 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 6
In applying and resolving a case against that objective standard, Courts and

litigants, at least initially, do not need to be bogged down in the discovery process. 

While it is true that foreclosing discovery and applying immunity may have the

undesired effect of chilling actions against abuses of public authority, however, it

cannot be disputed seriously that claims frequently run against the innocent as well

as the guilty . . . ." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982). The cost of

those claims against the innocent are borne not only by the defendant officials, like

Dr. Edler, but to society as a whole. Id. The social costs include the expenses of

litigation, the sapping of official energy and scarce resources from immediate public

issues, and the deterrence of qualified and willing citizens from accepting

appointments to public office.

Perhaps most important among the costs of widespread and easy litigation

against public officials is the danger that the fear of being sued will "dampen the

ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible [public officials], in the

unflinching discharge of their duties." Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d

Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950).

In the Eleventh Circuit, then, qualified immunity exists not only to make

officials immune from damages/liability, but also to protect from the hassle of

litigation and all of its trappings. To protect officials from the burdens of litigation

- 4 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 6
in cases where they may be justifiably immune from suit, courts should not allow

discovery until that threshold question is resolved. Harlow, 457 U.S., 818. 

The court must exercise its discretion so that officials are not subjected to

unnecessary and burdensome discovery or trial proceedings. Mitchell v. Forsyth,

472 U.S. 511 (1985). "Judicial precedent makes clear that the driving force behind

creation of the qualified immunity doctrine is a desire to ensure that insubstantial

claims against government officials will be resolved prior to discovery." Pearson

v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). In giving effect to this policy, the Supreme

Court has repeatedly "stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at

the earliest possible stage in litigation." Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227

(1991)(per curiam).

Based on the preceding, Dr. Edler respectfully requests the Court enter an

order staying discovery until the qualified immunity issue presented in the

forthcoming Motion to Dismiss is resolved.

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE

The udnersigned hereby certifies an attorney from the undersigned law firm

contacted J.J. Talbott, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff Selover on April 6, 2020, who

stated that he did oppose the relief requested herein.

- 5 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have served a copy of the foregoing by filing 

it with the Clerk of Court via the CM/ECF System, which automatically serves a 

copy on all parties who have appeared in this matter; on this 7th day of April, 

2020. 

GFI/LOL/pa 

GEORGE F. INDEST III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M. 

Florida Bar No.: 382426 

Primary e-mail: Glndest@TheHealthLawFirm.com 

Secondary e-mail: CourtFilings@TheHealthLawFirm.com 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, 

RA YME EDLER, M.D. 

S:\2500-2599\2531\002\410-Pleadings-Drafts & Finals-Fed\Motion to Stay Discovery-lrev.wpd 

- 6 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 6 of 6