Free Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I Case 3:03-cv-002 1-AVC Document 100 Filed 0 I08/2006 Page 1 0f1 I
I · - UNITED STATES DISTRICT C • U _ _
Ogr DISTRICT op CONNECTI •I TPYEUI F B 3 [D l*· 5)* I
Q .
STATE EMPLOYEES BARGAINING C II ILL)·CII?;I%mNKXTFURDC€IJRT
I ` AGENT COAI§;I3;I%sET Al .. 3: 3CV22l (_ VC) I
I · JOHN G. ROWLAND, ET AL., I I
· Dckmhnm. I; FtBRUARY¤.Hm6 ‘ =
I DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 STAY DISCOV IP Y PEN!) NG APPEAL I
3:03cv221(AVC). March 8, 2006. The defendant) have iled the ` I
within motion for a stay of all discovery pendIng appaal of this l
court's January 18, 2006 ruling denying their Iotion o dismiss · I
and the court's January 31, 2006 order directivg the ommencement
of discovery. In the defendants' view, “permi ting a·y discovery
to commence during the pendency of the appeal Iffecti ely strips 4 _ I
[them] of their absolute legislative immunity.I In rasponse, the
plaintiffs argue that interlocutory appeal is Iot ava lable
because the issue of whether the defendants ari entit ed to
immunity turns on issues of fact. Further, thIy argua that even
if the appeal is authorized, the defendants haIe failad to show I
entitlement to a stay. Having reviewed the suamissio s of
counsel, the court is of the opinion that althiugh in»erlocutory I
appeal is available, the defendants have failek to shaw
entitlement to a stay. In this regard, interlIcutory appeal is `
available because, although the court ruled thit issuas of fact
precluded an award of legislative immunity, thi grava en of the
plaintiffs appeal is that the court erred as aImatter of law when
it made this determination. gg; Hill v. Cit af New ork, 45
F.3d 653, 660 (2d Cir. 1995) (immediate appealIis onl barred
where immunity defense depends upon disputed factual ssues - `
“not hinging on issues of law"). The defendanIs, how ver,
have failed to show entitlement to a stay pendIng app alxx In I
determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, t e cgnrt I
considers “(l) whether the [defendants have] mIde a s rong; “$H I
showing that [they are] likely to succeed on tIe meri s; (2) yjg (
whether the [defendants] will be irreparably iIjured bsent a g I
stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will suastanti lly°injur§@
the other parties interested in the proceedingI and ( ) where th? I
public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, I81 U.S 770I?776’” I
(1987). Applying the first factor, the defendInts ha e.not3made
a strong showing on the merits because adoptioI of th ir position I
would cloak any executive order with legislatiIe immu ity
regardless of whether that executive action waa legis atively I
authorized, and would hence render meaninglessIthe te m I
“legislative” in legislative immunity. BalancIng the hardships I
set forth in factors (2) and (3), the plaintif s have made the I
stronger showing. To be sure, the defendants Iill in ur legal
fees in commencing with discovery. However, aI set f rth in the l
court's previous order directing the commencemInt of aiscovery,
this case has lingered for years without-benef·t of d scovery.
Further delay is simply too costly because, ifIthe plaintiffs are
to prevail, they cannot recover money damages 'or the r lost
time, only reinstatement to lost jobs. Finalll, the ·ourt
appreciates the strong public interest considelations at play,
but recognizes no one interest as superior. ‘T·e cour· has
considered all other arguments advanced by the defendants and
concludes they are without merit T@§_Wp§§pHa dQ@hm€·t HO. 97)
is therefore DENIED. S _ I
gmw .___ ,,p,,,_p ......,...... iooi c SS SS S S S
;;§;ssssssés asssssséssEQ
asasssssssis asssssséggEQQQ;QQQQQQQ;§§ifT?;f*
ssséésssssssss sssssssssssséaQEDQQ;;;;r