Opinion ID: 3171252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: limited immunity discovery

Text: Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wright’s request for limited discovery. “We review a district court’s denial of a discovery request for abuse of discretion.” Pustejovsky v. Pliva, Inc., 623 F.3d 271, 278 (5th Cir. 2010). Any benefit of additional discovery on whether Benitez acted within the scope of employment and whether the United States knew of Benitez’s affair with Stacey Wright is “wholly speculative.” See Robbins v. Amoco Production Co., 952 F.2d 901, 907 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Paul Kadair, Inc. v. Sony Corp., 694 F.2d 1017, 1029 (5th Cir. 1983)). Moreover, Wright has 9 Case: 15-60285 Document: 00513350756 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 No. 15-60285 not shown how discovery as to those two issues “reasonably could be expected to offer an escape from the legal deficiencies” in Wright’s claims. Id. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Wright’s request for limited discovery.