1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mar 24, 2020 4 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 TRAVIS PENDELL, 10 Plaintiff, NO. 2:19-CV-00426-SAB 11 v. 12 SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON; ORDER GRANTING 13 LARRY H. HASKELL, in both his DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 14 official capacity as Spokane County EXPEDITED HEARING AND 15 Prosecutor and individually; and JOHN F. GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 DRISCOLL, in both his official capacity PROTECTIVE ORDER AND 17 as Deputy Prosecutor and individually; STAY OF DISCOVERY 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Stay of 22 Discovery, ECF No. 19, and associated Amended Motion for Expedited Hearing, 23 ECF No. 22. The motions were considered without oral arguments and on an 24 expedited basis. Defendants request that the Court enter a protective order and stay 25 discovery until the issues of immunity are resolved pursuant to Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 26(c). ECF No. 19 at 1-2. In response, Plaintiff argues that a 27 protective order and stay of discovery is not appropriate. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 1 does not oppose the consideration of Defendants’ request on an expedited basis. 2 Having reviewed the briefing and relevant caselaw, the Court grants Defendants’ 3 request for a protective order and stay of discovery. 4 Facts 5 Briefly, Plaintiff has brought suit against Defendants for placing him on the 6 Potential Impeachment Disclosure List (“PIDL”) or, as he calls it, the “Brady list” 7 on December 20, 2019. ECF No. 12 at ¶ 17. Parties agree that Plaintiff was placed 8 on the PIDL due to an incident that allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was 9 employed at the Cheney Police Department. Id. At a status conference on February 10 25, 2020, Defendants notified the Court and Plaintiff that they intended to file a 11 Motion to Dismiss on absolute immunity and immunity under the Eleventh 12 Amendment. ECF No. 15. The Court set a filing deadline of April 17, 2020 for any 13 such motion. ECF No. 16. On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff served his first set of 14 discovery requests on Defendants. ECF No. 19 at 3. 15 Legal Standard 16 Rule 26(c) provides that a party from whom discovery is sought may seek a 17 protective order and the court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party 18 from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. 19 Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The court may also stay discovery pursuant to this Rule. Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). 21 District courts have wide discretion in controlling discovery. Little v. City of 22 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Supreme Court has 23 repeatedly recognized that district courts should stay discovery pending a ruling on 24 immunity to further the goals of efficiency and preservation of judicial resources. 25 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 26 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). In the context of Rule 12 motions, “[i]f, taking the facts as 27 stated in the complaint, the defendant is entitled to immunity, no discovery should 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 1 be permitted…” Butler v. San Diego Dist. Attorney’s Office, 370 F.3d 956, 964 2 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). If the 3 plaintiff passes this initial hurdle and shows that immunity does not apply, he is 4 entitled to enough discovery to permit the court to rule on an eventual summary 5 judgment motion under Rule 56. Id. at 964. 6 Defendants indicate that their Motion to Dismiss will be filed pursuant to 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). ECF No. 19 at 3. Rule 12(c) provides that, after the pleadings 8 are closed but early enough not to delay trial, a party may move for judgment on 9 the pleadings. A motion under Rule 12(c) is functionally equivalent to a motion 10 brought under Rule 12(b). Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 11 (9th Cir. 1989). A judgment on the pleadings is proper when, assuming the truth of 12 the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings, the moving party is entitled to 13 judgment as a matter of law. Rubin v. United States, 904 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 14 2018). 15 Discussion 16 Defendants argue that a protective order and stay of discovery is warranted 17 until the Court rules on their forthcoming motion on immunity grounds. 18 Defendants also argue that a stay is appropriate because responding to the motion 19 to dismiss will not require Plaintiff to engage in discovery; Defendants argue that 20 because the claims they will raise are all questions of law, discovery is not 21 necessary to respond to them. In response, Plaintiff argues that—based on 22 Defendants’ answer and affirmative defenses—discovery is necessary to 23 adequately respond.1 Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that some of Defendants’ 24 claims are mixed questions of law and fact for which discovery will be necessary. 25
26 1 Plaintiff’s response also seems to attack the merits of Defendants’ not-yet-filed 27 motion to dismiss. However, the Court will not consider those arguments at this time because Defendants’ motion is not yet before this Court. 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 1 Finally, Plaintiff argues that a stay is not warranted because it would create case 2 management problems and would not dispose of the entirety of his claims. 3 Once Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion is before the Court, the Court will 4 accept the assertions in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as true and draw any 5 and all inferences in favor of Plaintiff as the nonmoving party. See Yakima Valley 6 Mem’l Hosp. v. Wash. State Dep’t of Health, 654 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2011). 7 Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based on official immunity claims—and 8 “official immunity is an immunity from suit, rather than a mere defense to 9 liability”—discovery should be stayed until after the Court has an opportunity to 10 consider the motion. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985); Hanigan v. 11 City of Kent, 2006 WL 2350177 at *2-3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 11, 2006) (noting that 12 immunity claims are limits on “broad reaching” discovery and requiring defendant 13 to file a motion to dismiss within a certain time frame in granting motion to stay 14 discovery). On this basis alone, the Court grants Defendants’ motion and stays 15 discovery until the Court decides Defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss. 16 Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Defendants’ grounds 17 for dismissal are questions of law, not fact, for which additional discovery is not 18 required. For example, whether a defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment 19 sovereign immunity is a question of law, not fact. BV Eng’g v. Univ of Cal., Los 20 Angeles, 858 F.2d 1394, 1395 (9th Cir. 1988).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mar 24, 2020 4 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 TRAVIS PENDELL, 10 Plaintiff, NO. 2:19-CV-00426-SAB 11 v. 12 SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON; ORDER GRANTING 13 LARRY H. HASKELL, in both his DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 14 official capacity as Spokane County EXPEDITED HEARING AND 15 Prosecutor and individually; and JOHN F. GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 DRISCOLL, in both his official capacity PROTECTIVE ORDER AND 17 as Deputy Prosecutor and individually; STAY OF DISCOVERY 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Stay of 22 Discovery, ECF No. 19, and associated Amended Motion for Expedited Hearing, 23 ECF No. 22. The motions were considered without oral arguments and on an 24 expedited basis. Defendants request that the Court enter a protective order and stay 25 discovery until the issues of immunity are resolved pursuant to Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 26(c). ECF No. 19 at 1-2. In response, Plaintiff argues that a 27 protective order and stay of discovery is not appropriate. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 1 does not oppose the consideration of Defendants’ request on an expedited basis. 2 Having reviewed the briefing and relevant caselaw, the Court grants Defendants’ 3 request for a protective order and stay of discovery. 4 Facts 5 Briefly, Plaintiff has brought suit against Defendants for placing him on the 6 Potential Impeachment Disclosure List (“PIDL”) or, as he calls it, the “Brady list” 7 on December 20, 2019. ECF No. 12 at ¶ 17. Parties agree that Plaintiff was placed 8 on the PIDL due to an incident that allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was 9 employed at the Cheney Police Department. Id. At a status conference on February 10 25, 2020, Defendants notified the Court and Plaintiff that they intended to file a 11 Motion to Dismiss on absolute immunity and immunity under the Eleventh 12 Amendment. ECF No. 15. The Court set a filing deadline of April 17, 2020 for any 13 such motion. ECF No. 16. On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff served his first set of 14 discovery requests on Defendants. ECF No. 19 at 3. 15 Legal Standard 16 Rule 26(c) provides that a party from whom discovery is sought may seek a 17 protective order and the court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party 18 from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. 19 Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The court may also stay discovery pursuant to this Rule. Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). 21 District courts have wide discretion in controlling discovery. Little v. City of 22 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Supreme Court has 23 repeatedly recognized that district courts should stay discovery pending a ruling on 24 immunity to further the goals of efficiency and preservation of judicial resources. 25 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 26 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). In the context of Rule 12 motions, “[i]f, taking the facts as 27 stated in the complaint, the defendant is entitled to immunity, no discovery should 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 1 be permitted…” Butler v. San Diego Dist. Attorney’s Office, 370 F.3d 956, 964 2 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). If the 3 plaintiff passes this initial hurdle and shows that immunity does not apply, he is 4 entitled to enough discovery to permit the court to rule on an eventual summary 5 judgment motion under Rule 56. Id. at 964. 6 Defendants indicate that their Motion to Dismiss will be filed pursuant to 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). ECF No. 19 at 3. Rule 12(c) provides that, after the pleadings 8 are closed but early enough not to delay trial, a party may move for judgment on 9 the pleadings. A motion under Rule 12(c) is functionally equivalent to a motion 10 brought under Rule 12(b). Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 11 (9th Cir. 1989). A judgment on the pleadings is proper when, assuming the truth of 12 the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings, the moving party is entitled to 13 judgment as a matter of law. Rubin v. United States, 904 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 14 2018). 15 Discussion 16 Defendants argue that a protective order and stay of discovery is warranted 17 until the Court rules on their forthcoming motion on immunity grounds. 18 Defendants also argue that a stay is appropriate because responding to the motion 19 to dismiss will not require Plaintiff to engage in discovery; Defendants argue that 20 because the claims they will raise are all questions of law, discovery is not 21 necessary to respond to them. In response, Plaintiff argues that—based on 22 Defendants’ answer and affirmative defenses—discovery is necessary to 23 adequately respond.1 Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that some of Defendants’ 24 claims are mixed questions of law and fact for which discovery will be necessary. 25
26 1 Plaintiff’s response also seems to attack the merits of Defendants’ not-yet-filed 27 motion to dismiss. However, the Court will not consider those arguments at this time because Defendants’ motion is not yet before this Court. 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 1 Finally, Plaintiff argues that a stay is not warranted because it would create case 2 management problems and would not dispose of the entirety of his claims. 3 Once Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion is before the Court, the Court will 4 accept the assertions in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as true and draw any 5 and all inferences in favor of Plaintiff as the nonmoving party. See Yakima Valley 6 Mem’l Hosp. v. Wash. State Dep’t of Health, 654 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2011). 7 Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based on official immunity claims—and 8 “official immunity is an immunity from suit, rather than a mere defense to 9 liability”—discovery should be stayed until after the Court has an opportunity to 10 consider the motion. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985); Hanigan v. 11 City of Kent, 2006 WL 2350177 at *2-3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 11, 2006) (noting that 12 immunity claims are limits on “broad reaching” discovery and requiring defendant 13 to file a motion to dismiss within a certain time frame in granting motion to stay 14 discovery). On this basis alone, the Court grants Defendants’ motion and stays 15 discovery until the Court decides Defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss. 16 Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Defendants’ grounds 17 for dismissal are questions of law, not fact, for which additional discovery is not 18 required. For example, whether a defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment 19 sovereign immunity is a question of law, not fact. BV Eng’g v. Univ of Cal., Los 20 Angeles, 858 F.2d 1394, 1395 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition, the Eleventh 21 Amendment does not apply only when a state is a named party; rather, if a party is 22 a state actor, regardless of their title, Eleventh Amendment immunity may apply. 23 Ceballos v. Garcetti, 361 F.3d 1168, 1182 (9th Cir. 2004), rev’d and remanded on 24 other grounds, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). Second, the question of whether prosecutorial 25 immunity applies is also a legal question. See Eklund v. City of Seattle Mun. Court, 26 628 F.3d 473, 484 (9th Cir. 2010) (qualified prosecutorial immunity); Genzler v. 27 Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 (9th Cir. 2005) (absolute prosecutorial immunity). 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 1 Third, whether a Plaintiff has suffered a deprivation of liberty or property by 2 Defendants’ actions is, again, a question of law. Blantz v. California Dep’t of Corr. 3 & Rehab., Div. of Corr. Health Care Servs., 727 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir. 2013). 4 Plaintiff is also incorrect that the question of whether the statute of limitations has 5 lapsed is a question of fact. See Rivas v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 164 Wash.2d 6 261, 267 (2008) (“whether a case was filed within the statute of limitations is 7 normally a question of law to be determined by a judge.”). Thus, taking the 8 allegations in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as true, no discovery is 9 necessary to resolve any of the immunity defenses Defendants indicate they will 10 raise in their forthcoming Rule 12(c) motion. 11 Conclusion 12 Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based on official immunity 13 claims—and “official immunity is an immunity from suit, rather than a mere 14 defense to liability”—discovery should be stayed until after the Court has an 15 opportunity to consider the motion. See Mitchell, 472 U.S.at 526 . The Court grants 16 Defendants’ request for a stay because it furthers the goals of efficiency and is 17 required by principles of stare decisis. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 1. Defendants’ Amended Motion for Expedited Hearing, ECF No. 22, is 20 GRANTED. 21 2. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Stay of Discovery, ECF No. 22 19, is GRANTED. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 1 3. The stay will be lifted and discovery will commence, if necessary, after 2|| the Court reaches a decision on Defendant’s forthcoming Rule 12(c) motion. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and to provide copies to counsel. 5 DATED this 24th day of March 2020. © Souler Fecthar 10 . Stanley A. Bastian
United States District Judge
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND