Estate of Jimma Pal Reat v. Rodriguez, 1:12-cv-02531

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on Sept 24, 2012 against Rodriguez and the City/County of Denver alleging due process, equal protection, deliberate indifference, wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court previously stayed the action through Oct 3, 2012 pending settlement negotiations and an amended complaint added five claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov 30, 2012 and filed a Motion to Stay Discovery; Plaintiffs filed a Substituted First Amended Complaint maintained the same claims.
The City later filed a motion to dismiss on Dec 24, 2012 and Rodriguez on Jan 3, 2013, with Rodriguez asserting qualified immunity and the City asserting no immunity but challenging the deliberate indifference claim.
Plaintiffs contended for limited discovery on Rodriguez’s immunity and full discovery from the City, while Defendants sought a stay pending the dispositive motions.
The court granted in part a stay for Rodriguez’s discovery and denied a full stay for the City, allowing limited discovery on specified topics.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be stayed pending Rodriguez’s qualified-immunity motion.	Plaintiffs seek limited discovery on immunity.	Rodriguez qualified-immunity allows a stay of discovery.	Rodriguez discovery stayed; limited to immunity context.
Whether discovery regarding the City should proceed pending dispositive motions.	Plaintiffs want full discovery from the City.	Discovery should be limited to specific topics.	City discovery allowed in limited scope as outlined in the order.
Whether a middle-ground approach balancing five- factor stay criteria is warranted.	Expedite proceedings despite some discovery.	Stay necessary to avoid wasted discovery if dismissal occurs.	A middle-ground stay appropriate; permit discovery on topics c, f, g, h, i, j as specified.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1997) (court may stay proceedings pending dispositive immunity issues)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (broad discretion to stay proceedings to control docket)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (early resolution of immunity questions favored; discovery disruption concerns)
Moore v. Busby, 92 F. App’x 699 (10th Cir. 2004) (stay of discovery pending immunity question depicted in 10th Cir.)
Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1995) (immunity and early dismissal considerations in 10th Cir.)
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1991) (threshold immunity question must be resolved before discovery)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (immunity defense considerations for public officials)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (discussion of qualified immunity does not mandate broad discovery hurdles)
Rome v. Romero, 225 F.R.D. 640 (D. Colo. 2004) (recognizes limited discovery permissible with immunity defenses)
Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Speciality Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (district court discovery stances in stay contexts)