Free Order on Motion to Continue - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Phoenix Police Officer Michael ) Meelhuysen, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

Robert Joseph Krumlauf,

No. CV-04-720-PHX-ROS (LOA) ORDER

This matter arises on Defendant Meelhuysen's Motion to Stay Discovery. (Doc. 51). Defendant Meelhuysen requests a stay of discovery until the Court has ruled on his Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity (Doc. 39). To date, none of the other Defendants in this matter has moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity or joined in Defendant Meelhuysen's pending Motion to Stay. ANALYSIS In Miller v. Gammie, 292 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit held that "absolute immunity creates not only protection from liability, but also the right not to have to answer for one's actions at all." Id. See also, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). Moreover, a litigant is entitled to a ruling on immunity before the commencement of discovery. Miller, 292 F.2d at 987. The Supreme Court has held that until the threshold issue of immunity is resolved, discovery should not proceed. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Staying discovery not only protects the party requesting immunity, but further satisfies the court's goal of efficiency.
Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA Document 52 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In accordance with Miller, it is appropriate to stay discovery until the Court rules on the Motion of Defendant Meelhuysen for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity. The purpose of qualified immunity is to protect the holder from answering to claims in a court of law, which is precisely what discovery would force the Defendant to do. After consideration of this matter, the Court will grant Defendant Meelhuysen's request to stay discovery. Because the Court has granted Defendant's Meelhuysen's Motion to Stay Discovery, Plaintiff will have to file his Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment without conducting further discovery. The Court recognizes that a stay of discovery will affect Plaintiff's ability to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and that Plaintiff may feel disadvantaged in preparing his Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. "[T]his dilemma requires some relaxation of the ordinary rules of admissibility in the case of affidavits used to oppose qualified immunity motions." DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922, 926-927 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff may provide affidavits which contain hearsay evidence or speculation regarding the content of documents. Id. This relaxes the somewhat stringent requirements of what a response to a motion for summary judgment should ordinarily include. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion of Defendant Meelhuysen to Stay Discovery (document # 51) is GRANTED to the extent that discovery as to Defendant Meelhuysen is stayed pending the Court's ruling on Defendant Meelhuysen's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 39) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery as to the other defendants in this matter shall proceed according to the Scheduling Order in this matter. /// /// /// /// ///
Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA -2Document 52 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Meelhuysen shall immediately notify the Court in writing at such time as the district court rules on his Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) and, if appropriate, shall attach a proposed amended Scheduling and Discovery Order. DATED this 11th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

-3Document 52

Filed 07/12/2006

Page 3 of 3