Tareon Kelsey v. Nelly F. Withers, 16-15567

Plaintiffs (individuals cited in DeKalb County Recorder’s Court) sued Judge Nelly Withers and Court Administrator Troy Thompson alleging constitutional violations related to unlawful arrests; case removed to federal court after state-court denial of dismissal on immunity grounds.
The parties entered a joint scheduling order adopting bifurcated discovery: class-certification discovery first, merits discovery (including immunity-related discovery) only after the court decided class certification.
Defendants moved for summary judgment twice (asserting absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity) before merits discovery was conducted; the district court struck both motions as premature under the agreed bifurcated schedule.
At depositions taken during class discovery, counsel limited questioning to class issues and reserved merits re-deposition; defendants relied on deposition excerpts in their second summary-judgment filing.
The district court declined to modify the scheduling order and held striking the second summary-judgment motion was fair to prevent requiring plaintiffs to respond without merits discovery; defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking defendants’ second motion for summary judgment filed before merits discovery	Plaintiffs argued the scheduling order limited merits discovery and they would be prejudiced if required to respond without discovery	Defendants argued immunity is a threshold issue that can be resolved early and that merits discovery could not change immunity outcome	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion — district court within its docket-management authority to enforce the agreed bifurcated schedule and strike the motion as premature
Proper standard of review for appellants’ challenge (abuse of discretion vs. de novo)	N/A (appellants sought de novo review)	Appellants asked appellate court to decide the immunity motion de novo	Court reviewed for abuse of discretion because the appeal challenges enforcement of the scheduling order, not the substantive immunity ruling; affirmed district court’s management decision

Johnson v. Bd. of Regents, 263 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2001) (district-court management and discovery reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011) (courts may hold litigants to the terms of scheduling orders)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (courts may enter summary judgment sua sponte if losing party had notice to present evidence)
Snook v. Tr. Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, 859 F.2d 865 (11th Cir. 1988) (summary judgment must be decided on an adequate record)
Jones v. City of Columbus, Ga., 120 F.3d 248 (11th Cir. 1997) (opposing party should have adequate opportunity to complete discovery before summary judgment)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (importance of resolving immunity questions early)
Torres v. Puerto Rico, 485 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (district courts have discretion to set deadlines for asserting immunity defenses and sanction noncompliance)
Guzman-Rivera v. Rivera-Cruz, 98 F.3d 664 (1st Cir. 1996) (trial courts may cut off summary-judgment motions filed in violation of discovery orders)