Carter v. University of Texas at Dallas ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GEANIECE D. CARTER, Plaintiff, No.19-12381 v. District Judge Paul D. Borman Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, ET AL., / ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery [ECF No. 33]. Specifically, Defendants seek to stay discovery pending resolution of their amended motion to dismiss complaint [ECF No. 17]. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based in part on their assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity, an issue that does not require discovery as to the underlying factual basis of this case. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (until a “threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed”); see also Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 261 (6th Cir. 1988)(“discovery in litigation against government officials should be halted until the threshold question of immunity is resolved.”). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery [ECF No. 33] is GRANTED, and discovery is STAYED pending final resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 17]. -1- IT IS SO ORDERED. s/R. Steven Whalen R. STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: December 23, 2019 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on December 23, 2019, that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to non- registered ECF participants on December 23, 2019. s/Carolyn Ciesla Case Manager to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen -2-