Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 10 of
10
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 RegisterActionDate "2018-07-16" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: The Court denies as moot the Defendants' original motions to dismiss 28 , 33 as having been superseded by subsequent motions to dismiss directed at the Amended Complaint. The Court denies as moot the Defendants' Objections 45 to the Magistrate Judge's entry of the Scheduling Order. The crux of that motion related to the directive that the individual Defendants make Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures notwithstanding their assertion of qualified immunity, and the Magistrate Judge's subsequent order 59 staying all discovery as to the individual Defendants renders those Objections moot.The Court denies the City and County of Denver's Objections 69 to the Magistrate Judge's Order 59 that Denver participate in discovery nothwtistanding the individual Defendants' pending claims of immunity. Although the Court is mindful of the discussion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684-85 (2009), regarding the necessity to shield the individual Defendants from the indirect burdens of discovery, this Court does not read that case to automatically entitle entities -- who are not entitled to qualified immunity -- to the same broad protection agaisnt discovery that individuals asserting qualified immunity have. This is particularly so as, here, Denver has not asserted that the Plaintiffs have even served any discovery requests yet, much less demonstrated that such requests unduly burden the individual Defendants. The Court can conceive of many topics of discovery that can be sought from Denver without implicating the individual Defendants' interests, including the identification and production of City policy statements, manuals, training materials, personnel records, correspondence and information not involving the individual Defendants, and information relating to comparable cases involving similarly-situated individuals. Accordingly, the Court cannot say that a wholesale, derivative stay of discovery against Denver is proper, and the Court overrules Denver's Objections. Denver may, of course, challenge the appropriateness of a specific discovery request if it believes that such a request compromises the individual Defendants' immunity from discovery (as discussed in Iqbal). But to the extent that Denver contends that it is automatically and completely entitled to piggyback on the individuals' immunities from discovery, the Court finds that argument without merit. The Court having resolved the parties' discovery Objections, the motion to stay 92 pending such resolution is denied as moot. By Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 7/16/18. Text Only Entry (msklc2, ) (Entered: 07/16/2018)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 AdministrativeID "93" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de27 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de32 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de44 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de58 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de68 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-03018_de91 @default.