Blackburn v. Executive Director of CDOC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 24-cv-00865-CNS-NRN
ROGER SCOTT BLACKBURN,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CDOC,
WARDEN OF STERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
JOHN CHAPDELAINE, Assistant Warden,
SMITHGALL, Lt., and
STERLING CORRECT. MED., et. al.,
Defendants.
ORDER1 ON
DEFENDANTS RANDALL SMITHGALL’S AND JOHN CHAPDELAINE’S MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 79)
N. REID NEUREITER
United States Magistrate Judge
This case is before the Court pursuant to an Order (ECF No. 80) referring the
subject motion (ECF No. 79) issued by Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney. Now before the
1 Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a pretrial
matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a Magistrate Judge to
hear and decide, the Magistrate Judge must issue a written order stating the decision.
Within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of this Minute Order, any party may
serve and file written objections with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Failure to make any
such objection will result in a waiver of the right to appeal the non-dispositive order. See
Sinclair Wyo. Ref. Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd. 989 F.3d 747, 782 (10th Cir. 2021) (firm
waiver rule applies to non-dispositive orders); but see Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418
F.3d 1116, 1119, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the
interests of justice require review, such as when a “pro se litigant has not been informed
of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object”).
Case No. 1:24-cv-00865-CNS-NRN Document 82 filed 10/31/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
Court is Defendants Randall Smithgall and John Chapdelaine’s (“Defendants”) Motion
to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution Their Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 79). The Court has carefully considered the motion. The Court has taken
judicial notice of the Court’s file and has considered the applicable Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and case law. The Court now being fully informed makes the following
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a stay of
proceedings. See String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-
LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30, 2006) (unpublished). Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26 does, however, provide that “[a] party or any person from whom
discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is
pending . . . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(c). Moreover, “[t]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be
done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)
(citing Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)). An order
staying discovery is thus an appropriate exercise of this Court's discretion. Id.
A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored. Bustos v. United States, 257
F.R.D. 617, 623 (D. Colo. 2009). However, courts have routinely recognized that
discovery may be inappropriate while issues of immunity or jurisdiction are being
Case No. 1:24-cv-00865-CNS-NRN Document 82 filed 10/31/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
resolved. See, e.g., Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231-32 (1991) (noting that immunity
is a threshold issue, and discovery should not be allowed while the issue is pending);
Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (same). Similarly, a stay may
be appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose of the entire action.”
Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003); see Vivid
Techs., Inc. v. Am. Science & Engineering, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(“When a particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay discovery concerning
other issues until the critical issue is resolved.”). The Supreme Court has established
that evaluating the defense of qualified immunity is a threshold issue, and “[u]ntil this
threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.” Siegert v.
Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233 (1991) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982));
Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (same). However, the defense
of qualified immunity “is not a bar to all discovery.” Rome v. Romero, 225 F.R.D. 640,
643 (D. Colo. 2004). There are certain circumstances when discovery is permissible
despite an assertion of qualified immunity, including cases alleging official-capacity
claims, requests for injunctive (as opposed to monetary) relief, and claims against
entities, not individuals. See Rome, 225 F.R.D. at 643. Additionally, permitting
discovery up until the point that qualified immunity is raised may be appropriate,
particularly when the defense is not advanced until the filing of a motion for summary
judgment. Id. at 643-44.
When considering a stay of discovery, this Court has considered the following
factors: (1) the plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and
the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the
Case No. 1:24-cv-00865-CNS-NRN Document 82 filed 10/31/24 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
convenience to the Court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;
and (5) the public interest. See String Cheese Incident, 2006 WL 894955, at *2.
Here, Defendants seek to stay all discovery pending resolution of their motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 67). Defendants argue that a stay of discovery should be ordered
based on their pending motion to dismiss which alleges, among other things, that
Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and that Plaintiff’s claims are
barred by the statute of limitations. They further argue that the String Cheese factors
favor a stay.
The case is still in the early stages of litigation; Defendants responded to
Plaintiff’s operative complaint with the pending motion to dismiss that could fully dispose
of Plaintiff’s claims before engaging in the discovery process. A balance of the above
factors favors a stay in this matter. Most significantly, the Court finds that the interest of
Plaintiff to proceed expeditiously is outweighed by the burden on Defendants of having
to participate in discovery while their motion to dismiss is pending. Further, while the
Court typically discourages stays of discovery, the Court acknowledges the efficiency
and fairness of delaying the proceedings pending resolution of a motion to dismiss that
could resolve this matter in its entirety. See Harris v. United States, No. 09-cv-02658-
PAB-KLM, 2010 WL 1687915, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2010) (“[n]either [the Court’s] nor
the parties’ time is well-served by being involved in the ‘struggle over the substance of
the suit’ when, as here, a dispositive motion is pending.”) (citations omitted). Finally, the
Court finds that the interests of non-parties and the public interest do not greatly favor
one side.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
Case No. 1:24-cv-00865-CNS-NRN Document 82 filed 10/31/24 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution Their
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 79) is GRANTED. Discovery is
STAYED until after Judge Sweeney issues a final ruling on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 67) or until further Order of Court.
BY THE COURT
Date: October 31, 2024 s/ N. Reid Neureiter
Denver, Colorado N. Reid Neureiter
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-00865-CNS-NRN Document 82 filed 10/31/24 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5