Loumiet v. United States of America, 225 F. Supp. 3d 79

Plaintiff Carlos Loumiet sued the United States and four OCC employees under the FTCA, Bivens, and related state tort theories, alleging unlawful conduct and publicity of private facts.
The case has a lengthy procedural history with multiple prior rounds of dispositive motions and appeals; the D.C. Circuit recently reversed and remanded for further consideration of two issues identified on appeal.
On remand the Court directed supplemental briefing; the Individual Defendants and the Government filed separate Motions to Dismiss raising, inter alia, qualified immunity and discretionary-function defenses.
Ten days after those Motions to Dismiss were filed, Loumiet served an expansive discovery request spanning ~17 years and 46 production requests, well beyond the court’s presumptive limits.
Defendants moved to stay discovery pending resolution of the pending Motions to Dismiss; Plaintiff opposed, asserting prejudice and that the Government controls most documents.
The Court granted the stay, concluding qualified immunity and dispositive threshold issues should be resolved before burdensome discovery proceeds and that any prejudice to Plaintiff did not outweigh those considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should proceed while motions to dismiss are pending	Loumiet contends discovery is needed and delay will prejudice him; the Government holds most responsive documents	Defendants argue discovery should be stayed because pending dispositive motions could resolve or narrow claims and defendants raised qualified immunity	Discovery stayed pending decision on Motions to Dismiss
Effect of qualified immunity on discovery	Loumiet did not assert discovery is necessary to oppose immunity motions	Individual Defendants assert qualified immunity entitles them to avoid burdens of discovery	Court found qualified immunity concerns counsel against discovery before threshold immunity questions are resolved
Scope/timing of Plaintiff’s broad document requests	Loumiet served a wide-ranging 17-year, 46-request production	Defendants argue requests are overbroad, exceed presumptive limits, and would require substantial litigation over scope	Court cited overbreadth and anticipated scope disputes as additional reason to stay discovery
Prejudice from delaying discovery	Loumiet argued four-year delay in case warrants prompt discovery	Defendants noted prior agreement to stay discovery and emphasized complex threshold legal issues causing earlier delays	Court concluded any prejudice did not outweigh the need to resolve threshold dispositive issues first

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (discussing discovery burdens posed by qualified-immunity defenses)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (directing that discovery should generally await resolution of threshold immunity questions)
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (holding courts should resolve immunity defenses before permitting discovery)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity entitles defendant to dismissal before discovery)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (qualified immunity protects officials from burdens of pretrial matters including discovery)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (importance of resolving immunity questions at earliest stage)
Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (qualified immunity permits avoidance of disruptive pretrial discovery)
White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (district court has discretion to stay discovery)
Brune v. IRS, 861 F.2d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (standard on staying discovery)
Institut Pasteur v. Chiron Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2004) (staying discovery while fully dispositive motions are pending)