01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES DEAN WILKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER S. PORTER, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C05-2057-RSM-JPD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff is an inmate at the King County Correctional Facility in Seattle, Washington

who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. 

This matter comes before the Court upon plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to respond

to his interrogatories and requests for production. Dkt. No. 20. Defendants oppose the

motion on the basis of qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 21. They argue that they need not

respond to discovery requests that relate to issues other than qualified immunity until the

Court has determined whether they are entitled to that defense. Id. Having carefully

reviewed the parties’ papers, supporting documents, and the record, the Court ORDERS as

Case 2:05-cv-02057-RSM Document 23 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PAGE -2

follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED. Public officials who

perform discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity in a civil action for damages,

provided that his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that should be raised

early in a case in order to prevent government defendants from shouldering the burden of

unnecessary litigation and costly pretrial procedure. Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308

(1996) (internal citations omitted). Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense from

suit, discovery is not appropriate until the Court has ruled on the issue. Doe v. Petaluma City

School Dist., 54 F.3d 1447, 1449-50 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,

526 (1985)). 

Defendants have indicated that they intend to raise the qualified immunity defense. 

Dkt. Nos. 16, 21. Defendants are entitled to raise this defense and need not participate in

discovery unrelated to qualified immunity until the Court rules on the issue. Defendants,

however, may not delay discovery indefinitely. Defendants are therefore directed to submit a

motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by August 11, 2006. If they do not file a

motion by this date, then they will be required to respond to the discovery propounded by

plaintiff. Plaintiff may file his opposition to any motion to dismiss on qualified immunity in

accordance with Local Rule CR 7(d).

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the

Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez.

Case 2:05-cv-02057-RSM Document 23 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PAGE -3

DATED this 21st day of July, 2006. AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02057-RSM Document 23 Filed 07/21/06 Page 3 of 3