Harris v. City of Balch Springs, 33 F. Supp. 3d 730

Morris asserted qualified immunity on two of Harris's claims (Counts Three and Four).
The court previously denied qualified immunity on Counts Three and Four, which are §1981 race discrimination and First Amendment association discrimination under §1983, respectively.
Morris filed an interlocutory appeal and requested or suggested a global stay of discovery and proceedings.
The court distinguishes between claims against Morris and those against the City; Counts One, Two, Five, and Six involve the City and do not implicate Morris's qualified immunity defense.
The court agrees that discovery may proceed on Counts One, Two, Five, and Six, subject to a scheduling order, but not on Counts Three and Four, which are the subject of the appeal.
The court emphasizes the age of the case and states it will not delay discovery on non-immune claims, though no trial date will be set until the immunity issue is resolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a global stay of discovery is warranted	Harris argues no stay and discovery should proceed.	Morris seeks stay under Iqbal to avoid discovery costs.	Denied; discovery may proceed on non-immune claims.
Whether discovery may proceed on non-immune claims while the immunity appeal is pending	Discovery should proceed on all counts.	Discovery should be limited to immunity-related issues.	Discovery may proceed on Counts One, Two, Five, and Six.
Whether Iqbal requires a global stay pending interlocutory appeal	Iqbal supports deferring discovery.	Iqbal does not require a global stay.	Iqbal does not mandate a global stay; not applicable to this case's non-immune claims.
Whether Morris remains pivotal as a witness on non-immune City claims	Morris is essential as a City witness for non-immune claims.	None stated beyond immunity scope.	Morris may be a material witness for the City's non-immune claims; safeguards can prevent interference with the appeal.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (right to immunity from certain litigation, not from litigation generally)
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1982) (jurisdictional significance of notice of appeal; affects court's control)
Alice L. v. Dusek, 492 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 2007) (affects interpretation of related proceedings and immunity scope)
Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406 (5th Cir. 1995) (federal courts' inherent authority to manage dockets)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; minimally intrusive discovery discussed)