CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-06-CV-138 (TJW).United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division.
December 14, 2006
MEMORANDUM ORDER
T. WARD, District Judge
Before the Court is Defendants Albert Rodriguez’s and Erwin Ballarta’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Discovery Stay and to Quash Deposition Notices (#75). The motion is DENIED.
The Court previously denied, without prejudice, Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. See Dckt. #36. This was not a denial on the merits and Defendants may reassert their qualified immunity defense once the factual record relating to qualified immunity has been more fully developed. The Court has permitted only limited discovery, as to Rodriguez and Ballarta, on the issue of qualified immunity. Id. Such discovery orders are not immediately appealable. Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507-08 (5th Cir. 1987).
Defendants argue that, once a notice of appeal has been filed, a district court may not proceed with pre-trial matters against them as held in Williams v. Brooks, 996 F.2d 728, 729-30 (5th Cir.
Page 2
1993). However, Williams involved a denial of immunity on the merits. See id. at 729. Williams, therefore, is distinguishable See Hegarty v. Somerset County, 25 F.3d 17, 18 (1st Cir. 1994) (“[T]he district court, prior to its ruling on the issue of qualified immunity, properly ordered some discovery limited to that issue. . . . What the district court thereafter authorized, and what we have stayed pending these appeals, is more extensive discovery directed at the merits of the case.”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to reconsider this Court’s previous denial of their motion to stay discovery is DENIED. Defendants’ motion to quash deposition notices is also DENIED.
Page 1