McWashington v. Rodgers et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BRANDON MCW ASHINGTON,
P laintif.f,
VS.
JOSEPH RODGERS , JI , et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-02153
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before this Court are Houston Police Department's Motion to Quash Plaintiffs
Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. No. 83), Defendants ' Motion to Quash Plaintiffs Subpoena Duces
Tecum to Non party Houston Police Department (Doc. No. 84), Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File
Surreply (Doc. No. 91 ), Defendants ' Motion to Limit Di scove ry to Qualified Immunity and for
Protective Order (Doc. No. 93), and Plaintiffs Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 94). The Court is also in
receipt of all responses and replie s. (Doc. Nos. 87-90, 92). The Court addresses the pending Motions
below.
The Motions to Quash (Doc. Nos. 83 , 84) are GRANTED. 1 This Court outlined the
information that Plaintiff should seek from the Houston Police Department in its March 12 , 2026 order.
(Doc. No. 79) ("Any material related to the (1) use of force reports related to the incident, (2) Houston
Police Department training policies, (3) any complaint history or history of misconduct, (4) the training
records of Officer Rodgers or the K-9 Rico, or (5) any civil or criminal complaints filed against Officer
Rodgers or the K-9 Rico must be subpoenaed from the Houston Police Department."). Instead of
pursuing the path laid out by the Court, Plaintiff went well beyond the Court's order and sought so
1 The Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. No. 91) is also GRANTED. The Court considered the
surreply (Doc. No. 92) for the purposes of this Order.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-02153 Document 95 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

much information that the phrase "fishing expedition" does not do it justice. See (Doc. No. 83-1). In
fact, the requests are so far-reaching and so beyond any limit justified by the pleadings in this case that
this Court has no way to reform the subpoena. Instead, this Court must quash the subpoena in its
entirety.
The Defendants' Motion to Limit Discovery to Qualified Immunity (Doc. No. 93) is also
GRANTED. It is a truism in this genre of litigation that qualified immunity not only means immunity
from judgment , but it also means immunity from the lawsuit. See, e.g., Brown v. US. Postal Serv., 338
Fed. App ' x 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2009). The Court hereby limits current discovery to areas reasonably
related to the issue of qualified immunity until those issues are resolved.
Finally, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. No . 94) is GRANTED. Since the Court is limiting
current discovery to immunity issues, it would not be fair to the Plaintiff to have all the deadlines pass
by without discovery on the merits.
With that in mind , the Parties have until September 30, 2026 to complete all discovery
regarding immunity. At that point, all discovery will be stayed. Defendants may file a dispositive
motion on that topic if they do so by October 16, 2026. If such a motion is filed , Plaintiff has until
November 6, 2026 to file a response, and the Defendants will have until November 20, 2026 to file a
reply. After the Court rules on the anticipated motions or if no such motions are filed , the Court will
enter a scheduling order that will govern this case to completion.
It is so ordered.
~
Signed on this the -1..:i_ day of May 2026.
/~\_:::J~Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
2
Case 4:24-cv-02153 Document 95 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2