Opinion ID: 2258806
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plaintiffs Were Denied Discovery

Text: With respect to all counts of their complaint, plaintiffs argue that they were improperly disadvantaged by the failure of the superior court to allow discovery before ruling on the summary judgment motion. Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability. Murray v. White, 155 Vt. at 626, 587 A.2d at 978. Because of this purpose, discovery is not generally allowed until the immunity question is resolved. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231-32, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. Thus, defendants must be protected from the costs associated with trial and `the burdens of broad-reaching discovery.' Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738). Occasionally, discovery may be necessary to determine whether there is a bonafide question of whether defendant's conduct violated clearly established law. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. at 646-47 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. at 3042 n. 6; Lewis v. City of Fort Collins, 903 F.2d 752, 754 (10th Cir. 1990). We do not believe this is such a case. We have a full record of the various documents generated in the course of the interaction of plaintiffs and Melanie with SRS and the legal system. These documents pin down and explain the relevant events and are supplemented with the affidavits of the parties. Without resolving disputed questions that go to the merits of the § 1983 claims or the damages sought by plaintiffs  for example, whether Brandi was ever sexually assaulted by Joe Vincelette  we can resolve the qualified immunity claims. We see no reason why these defendants should be put through the burden of depositions or other discovery. We hold the denial of discovery was within the discretion of the trial court. Affirmed.