Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdepositiondiscoverymotioncivil proceduremotion to dismiss
plaintiffdepositiondiscoverymotioncivil proceduremotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Hamilton v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 395 F.Supp. 975, 20 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1094
View Case »
Sliech-Brodeur v. Com., 447 Mass. 1004, 849 N.E.2d 806
View Case »
Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99
View Case »
Glaser v. Cincinnati Milacron, Inc., 808 F.2d 285, 55 USLW 2423, 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 737
View Case »
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,353, 74 USLW 4257, 152 Lab.Cas. P 60,203, 24 IER Cases 737, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4453, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6495, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Aguilar v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of United States Department of Homeland, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2011 WL 13258226

Facts

The plaintiffs allege that ICE officials violated their constitutional rights by unlawfully searching their homes and targeting Latinos for arrest. The case has involved extensive discovery, including 127 depositions and over 50,000 pages of documents exchanged. The Officials sought a stay of discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending, arguing that they had a substantial possibility of prevailing on the motion.

To date, the parties have conducted 127 depositions and also have exchanged more than 50,000 pages of documents.

Issue

Whether the court should grant the Officials' motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint.

The Officials seek a stay of “(i) all document discovery and written discovery directed against them; [and] (ii) their initial disclosures and interrogatory responses.”

Rule

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to stay discovery for 'good cause' while a dispositive motion is pending, considering the strength of the motion, the breadth of discovery sought, and the potential prejudice to the non-moving party.

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to stay discovery for “good cause.”

Analysis

The court analyzed the strength of the Officials' motion to dismiss, noting that similar motions had been denied in other cases involving Fourth Amendment claims against the same officials. The court also considered the burden of responding to discovery requests and concluded that staying document discovery was not justified, as the Officials had already conducted searches for relevant documents. However, the court recognized that requiring responses to interrogatories could be burdensome and potentially prejudicial if the claims against the Officials were dismissed.

The court analyzed the strength of the Officials' motion to dismiss, noting that similar motions had been denied in other cases involving Fourth Amendment claims against the same officials.

Conclusion

The court granted the Officials' motion to stay with respect to interrogatories and initial disclosures but denied it regarding document requests, requiring the Officials to produce any additional documents responsive to the plaintiffs' requests.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Officials' motion for a stay of discovery, (ECF No. 217), is granted with respect to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and the Officials' Rule 26(a) disclosures, but denied with respect to Plaintiffs' document requests.

Who won?

The court partially favored the Officials by granting a stay on interrogatories and initial disclosures, indicating that the burden of responding to these requests could be unwarranted if the claims against them were dismissed.

The court granted the Officials' motion to stay with respect to interrogatories and initial disclosures, indicating that the burden of responding to these requests could be unwarranted if the claims against them were dismissed.

You must be