Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NUMBER: 3:20-CV-4698-

TKW-HTC

 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER, 

Defendants.

 /

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EDLER’S MOTION TO

STAY DISCOVERY

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, MATHEW SELOVER, by and through the 

undersigned counsel, and hereby responds in opposition to Defendant Edler’s 

Motion to Stay Discovery. In support of his opposition to Defendant Edler’s Motion 

to Stay Discovery, the Plaintiff states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed this case on or about January 17, 2020 in Escambia County 

Circuit Court against Defendants Escambia County Board of County Commissioners 

(the Board), and Rayme Edler (Edler) (collectively referred to as Defendants). The 

Complaint pleaded facts establishing that Edler, who is the Escambia County 

Medical Director, and the Board, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 2 of 11

Specifically, Plaintiff was a paramedic employed by the Board, and worked under 

Edler. Defendants failed to provide due process to Plaintiff regarding adverse 

employment actions taken against him, and Defendants unlawfully retaliated against 

Plaintiff for raising concerns with Edler’s job performance in violation of the First 

and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

Defendants subsequently removed the case to this Court. On or about April 7, 

2020, Defendant Edler filed a Motion to Stay Discovery based on Defendant Edler’s 

anticipated Motion to Dismiss which would argue that Edler is entitled to qualified 

immunity. In her Motion to Stay, Defendant Edler argues that if she is entitled to 

qualified immunity, then she is protected from suit, including discovery obligations, 

thus a stay is appropriate pending an outcome of the Court’s decision on qualified 

immunity. Defendant Edler later filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing she is entitled to 

qualified immunity on or about April 13, 2020.1 As argued below, the Court should 

DENY Defendant Edler’s Motion to Stay Discovery because the Complaint pleaded 

sufficient factual detail to plausibly infer that Defendant Edler is not entitled to 

qualified immunity.

BACKGROUND FACTS

At all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed by the Board as a paramedic; 

1 The Board has also filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s response to said motion is due on 

April 23, 2020.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 3 of 11

Plaintiff had a clearly established property right in his employment with the Board; 

and Plaintiff was entitled to due process regarding adverse employment actions 

taken against him. [ECF No. 1-3, ¶¶ 9-10]. At all times relevant, Defendant Edler 

was the Escambia County Medical Director, and oversaw Escambia County’s 

paramedics. [ECF No. 1-3, ¶ 8]. On or about April 23, 2019, Defendant Edler called 

for a Quality Assurance (QA) meeting regarding Plaintiff, but gave Plaintiff only 15 

minutes advance verbal notice of the meeting, did not advise Plaintiff what was to 

be discussed at the meeting, the QA board was comprised of at least one member 

who had a conflict of interest with Plaintiff, and Defendant Edler blindsided Plaintiff 

with never before raised complaints of job performance stretching back almost a 

year prior to the QA meeting, all of which is counter to the Board’s written policies. 

[ECF No. 1-3, ¶¶ 16-27]. Shortly after the QA meeting, Plaintiff filed a written 

complaint with the Board’s Human Resources (HR) department regarding the 

inappropriateness of the QA meeting procedures employed by Edler. [ECF No. 1-3, 

¶ 28].

After Plaintiff filed his complaint against Edler regarding the QA meeting, 

Edler directed that Plaintiff was no longer permitted to work as a paramedic, and 

placed Plaintiff on administrative duty. [ECF No. 1-3, ¶ 34]. In addition, after 

learning of Plaintiff’s complaint against her, Defendant Edler filed a complaint 

against Plaintiff with the Florida Department of Health. [ECF No. 1-3, ¶ 37]. As a 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 4 of 11

result of Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Edler, the Board began an 

investigation into the QA meeting, the discipline imposed on Plaintiff by Edler, and 

Edler’s conduct after Plaintiff filed his complaint. [ECF No. 1-3, ¶¶ 42-47]. Though 

the Board has completed its investigation, and Plaintiff has complied with all 

conditions imposed on him by the Board, Plaintiff continued to languish in his 

demoted administrative position at the direction of Defendant Edler. 

During the course of the Board’s investigation, the Board’s attorney, Charlie 

Peppler, issued an opinion on or about May 31, 2019 finding that Defendant Edler 

had effectively demoted Plaintiff; that Defendant Edler does not have the authority 

under Florida law to demote, or discipline Plaintiff; that the Board’s disciplinary 

policy provides for progressive discipline; and that Plaintiff is entitled to due process 

rights. [ECF No. 1-3, Ex. A, p. 1]. Then, in June 2019, the Boards Human Resources 

(HR) associate Ed Spainhower concluded in his report that “[i]t is clear that 

[Plaintiff] was not afforded the type of due process required by [the Board’s] policy 

and union collective bargaining agreements currently in effect, nor was he afforded 

the opportunity to adequately prepare for the review board that discussed situations 

from July of 2018 until May of 2019.” [ECF No. 1-3, Ex. B, p. 4]. Further, the 

Board’s Interim Public Safety Director, John Dosh, reminded Edler of the due 

process concerns on July 12, 2019. [ECF No. 1-3, Ex. C]. 

Nevertheless, Edler continued to refuse to allow Plaintiff to return to work as 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 4 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 5 of 11

a paramedic, instead, leaving Plaintiff to languish in a demoted administrative 

position despite being admonished that (1) she did not have the authority to take 

such action; and (2) that her actions were in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights. Thus, the allegations raised in the Complaint make clear that the Board’s 

representatives, agents, or employees not only opined that Defendant Edler did not 

have the authority to discipline Plaintiff, i.e., that discipline was not within her 

discretionary authority, but they also viewed Edler’s conduct as a clear violation of 

Plaintiff’s due process rights. Accordingly, as explained below, because Defendant 

Edler was not acting within her discretionary authority, and because she violated 

Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, Defendant Edler is not entitled to 

qualified immunity. Thus, the Court should DENY Defendant Edler’s Motion to 

Stay Discovery.

ARGUMENT

I. Relevant Law

“Generally, motions to stay discovery are disfavored by the Court because 

stays typically delay resolution of a case and extend the life of a case beyond an 

acceptable time period.” McMillan v. Dep’t of Corr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191249, 

*4 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2013). The moving party bears the burden to show good cause 

why the stay should be granted. Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 

Sept. 2, 1997). “In evaluating whether the moving party has met its burden, a court 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 5 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 6 of 11

must balance the harm produced by delay in discovery against the possibility that 

the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery.” Alcon 

Labs., Inc., v. Allied Vision Grp, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222262, *4 (S.D. Fla. 

Oct. 25, 2018). Stays of discovery are rarely granted. See Nankivil v. Lockheed 

Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla.), aff’d, 87 Fed. Appx. 713 (11th Cir. 

2003).

Here, Defendant Edler argues that a stay is appropriate because Defendant 

Edler alleges she is entitled to qualified immunity, and that as such, the case is ripe 

for dismissal on the pleadings. “To be entitled to qualified immunity, the defendant 

must first establish that [s]he was acting within the scope of h[er] discretionary 

authority.” Gaines v. Wardynski, 871 F.3d 1203, 1208 (11th Cir. 2017). If the 

defendant is able to show she was acting within her discretionary authority, then the 

burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights; and (2) that at the time of the violation, those rights were 

“clearly established.” Id. When considering whether the law clearly established the 

conduct as a constitutional violation, a court will look for whether the defendant was 

given fair warning that his conduct violated a constitutional right. Id. There are three 

methods to establish fair warning:

First, the plaintiffs may show that a materially similar case has already 

been decided. Second, the plaintiffs can point to a broader, clearly 

established principle that should control the novel facts of the 

situation. Finally, the conduct involved in the case may so obviously 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 6 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 7 of 11

violate the constitution that prior case law is unnecessary. 

Id. (quoting Terrell v. Smith, 668 F.3d 1244, 1255-56 (11th Cir. 2012)).

II. The Court Should Deny Defendant Elder’s Motion to Stay 

Because Defendant Edler Has Failed to Meet Her Burden to 

Show that a Stay is Appropriate

First, Defendant Edler has the burden to show that the conduct complained of 

was within her discretionary authority, and she is unable to meet that burden. The 

Boards own attorney, Charlie Peppler, plainly found that the disciplinary actions 

Defendant Edler took against Plaintiff were not within her authority. [ECF No. 1-3, 

Ex. A]. In fact, Defendant Edler has no specific authority to discipline Plaintiff. See 

Fla. Stat. 401.265(1) (2019) (medical director’s job duties do not include 

“administrative and managerial functions.”); Opinion of Escambia County Attorney 

Charlie Peppler, [ECF No. 1-3, Ex. A] (finding the medical director is not 

responsible for discipline because discipline is a managerial function that the County 

Administrator and Public Safety Director are charged with). Thus, Defendant Edler 

is unable to satisfy the first prong of the qualified immunity test, i.e., that she was 

performing a discretionary function. Nevertheless, assuming Defendant Edler can

establish that she was acting within her discretionary authority, Defendant Edler is 

not entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct violated Plaintiff’s clearly 

established constitutional rights.

When considering whether conduct violates clearly established law, the 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 7 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 8 of 11

analyses focuses on fair warning to the defendant. See Gaines, 871 F.3d at 1208. 

Conduct which obviously violates the constitution is sufficient to establish fair 

warning and defeat qualified immunity. See Terrell, 668 F.3d at 1255-56. Here, 

Defendant Edler’s conduct was an obvious violation of clearly established law. 

For example, the Board readily acknowledges in its Motion to Dismiss that 

“Florida has explained that Public employment is a constitutionally protected 

property interest.” [ECF No. 8, p. 16] (citing Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So.2d 

432, 439 (Fla. 2000); Hudson v. City of Riviera Beach, 982 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. 

Fla. 2013); Metro Dade County v. Sokolowski, 439 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 

1983). Further, the Board’s representatives, employees, or agents, i.e., Interim Public 

Safety Director John Dosh, County Administrator Mathew Coughlin, HR associate 

Ed Spainhower, and County Attorney Charlie Peppler all expressed opinions that 

Defendant Edler’s conduct was a violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights. [ECF 

No. 1-3, ¶¶ 42-46, Exs. A-C]. Spainhower even expressly noted in his June 2019 

report that “[i]t is clear that [Plaintiff] was not afforded . . . due process[.]” [ECF No. 

1-3, Ex. B]. Nevertheless, despite the Board being clearly aware that Defendant 

Edler’s conduct was violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and advising 

Defendant Edler of the same on multiple occasions, Defendant Edler persisted in her 

imposed discipline of Plaintiff, leaving him to languish in a demoted position for an 

indefinite period of time. Accordingly, Defendant Edler cannot reasonably claim that 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 8 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 9 of 11

Plaintiff’s interest in his employment and due process rights were not clearly 

established constitutional rights which she violated. Thus, Defendant Edler is unable 

to meet her burden that she is entitled to qualified immunity. As such, a stay is 

unreasonable. 

Finally, here, under the balancing test, See Alcon Labs., 2018 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 222262, *4, where the court considers the potential harm to the non-movant 

if a stay is granted compared to the likelihood that a defendant will prevail on a 

motion to dismiss, obviating the need for discovery in the first place, the likelihood 

of harm to Plaintiff, and the lack of prejudice to the Defendant weights in favor of 

denying the request for stay. Here, Plaintiff has pleaded facts which make clear that 

the Defendants have subjected him to a needlessly arduous, and defective process 

which continues to remain unresolved. Thus, granting Defendant Edler’s Motion to 

Stay will harm and unduly prejudice Plaintiff by sanctioning further delay, and 

prevent Plaintiff from seeking justice. 

On the other hand, Defendant Edler is unable to show prejudice, or undue 

burden, and indeed, has not argued that responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests 

presents an undue burden other than to argue that should she prevail on her qualified 

immunity argument, it would be unduly burdensome for her to reply to Plaintiff’s 

discovery. However, as argued above, Defendant Edler is unlikely to prevail on her 

qualified immunity argument. Thus, after balancing the potential harm to the parties, 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 9 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 10 of 11

the Court should find that a stay is inappropriate. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant Edler is unable to meet her 

burden to establish that she is entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, Defendant Edler 

is unable to meet her burden to show that a stay is reasonable here. As such, the 

Court should DENY Defendant Edler’s Motion to Stay Discovery.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeremiah J. Talbott

JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0154794

TRAVIS P. LAMPERT, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 0099843

Law Office of Jeremiah J. Talbott, P.A.

900 East Moreno Street

Pensacola, FL 32503

(850) 437-9600 / (850) 437-0906 (facsimile)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com

civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(F)

In accordance with N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(F), counsel for the Plaintiff hereby 

certifies there are 2,101 words in this Response to Defendant Edler’s Motion for 

Stay, not including the case style, signature blocks, or certificates.

/s/ Jeremiah J. Talbott

JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, ESQ.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 10 of 11
Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay 

Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21st day of April, 2020 a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing Response was furnished to counsel for the Defendants as listed 

below via CMC/ECF.

/s/ Jeremiah J. Talbott

JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, ESQ.

SERVICE LIST

Stephanie Pidermann, Esquire

Lydecker Diaz

1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

ksm@lydeckerdiaz.com

Ian M. Corp, Esq.

Lydecker Diaz

495 Grand Blvd, Suite 206

Miramar, FL 32550

imc@lydeckerdiaz.com

ev@lydeckerdiaz.com

Cecily L. Kaffer, Esq.

The Kullman Firm

P.O. Box 1287

Mobile, AL 36633

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 18 Filed 04/21/20 Page 11 of 11