Brown et al v. Kenner Police Department et al, No. 2:2017cv03445 - Document 60 (E.D. La. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 42 Motion to Stay Discovery. For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed until the Court rules on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/1/2018. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brown et al v. Kenner Police Department et al Doc. 60 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ARMOND BROWN, ET AL. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-3445 KENNER POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is defendants’ motion to stay discovery until defendants’ pending m otion for sum mary judgment has been resolved. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of the death of Arm ond J airon Chauncey Brown on J anuary 23, 20 17. 2 Mr. Brown, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, was allegedly shot and killed by Officer Michael Rom ano of the Kenner Police Department SWAT team . 3 On April 13, 20 17, Mr. Brown’s parents, Arm ond Brown, Sr. and J aronet Whitaker, and brothers, J oshua Brown and J am es Whitaker, J r., filed a com plaint for 1 2 3 R. Doc. 42. R. Doc. 13. Id. at 6 ¶ 13. Dockets.Justia.com dam ages asserting claim s under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law. 4 Plaintiffs subsequently filed two amended complaints, ultim ately nam ing as defendants (1) the City of Kenner, through Mayor E. “Ben” Zahn, III, (2) Officer Romano, (3) Kenner Police Departm ent Chief Michael Glaser, 5 and (4) certain unknown and as-yet-unnam ed Kenner police officers. 6 Plaintiffs assert that Arm ond J airon Chauncey Brown was shot and killed without just cause. 7 Plaintiffs further allege that the City of Kenner, through Chief of Police Glaser and Mayor E. “Ben” Zahn, adopted policies and practices that deprived Mr. Brown of his civil rights. 8 On Decem ber 27, 20 17, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dism iss plaintiffs’ claim s. 9 The Court has set a discovery deadline of September 25, 20 18, and trial is set to com m ence on Novem ber 5, 20 18. 10 4 R. Doc. 1. The Court has since dism issed plaintiffs’ claims against Chief Glaser. R. Doc. 31 at 12-13. 6 R. Doc. 13; R. Doc. 28. The original com plaint also nam ed the Kenner Police Departm ent as a defendant. See R. Doc. 1 at 1-2. But the Kenner Police Department was om itted in plaintiffs’ am ended complaint, and is no longer a defendant in this m atter. See R. Doc. 13 at 3 ¶ 6. 7 R. Doc. 13 at 8 ¶ 18. 8 Id. at 4-5 ¶¶ 10 -11. 9 R. Doc. 31 10 R. Doc. 33. 2 5 On J une 5, 20 18, defendants m oved for sum m ary judgm ent. 11 Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ rem aining claim s should be dism issed and that Officer Rom ano’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable, which entitles him to qualified im m unity. 12 Defendants’ motion was fully subm itted on J uly 18, 20 18. 13 On J une 12, 20 18, defendants filed the present m otion seeking to stay discovery until the Court resolves the qualified im m unity question raised in their m otion for sum m ary judgment. 14 Defendants’ stay m otion was also fully subm itted on J uly 18, 20 18. 15 Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 16 II. D ISCU SSION “The purpose of the qualified im m unity doctrine is to avoid ‘distraction of officials from their governmental duties, inhibition of discretionary action, and deterrence of able people from public service.’” Lion Boulos v. W ilson, 834 F.2d 50 4, 50 7 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 80 0 , 816 (1982)). The Fifth Circuit has recognized a potentially im m une 11 12 13 14 15 16 R. Doc. 35. R. Doc. 35-1. R. Doc. 41. R. Doc. 42. R. Doc. 42-2. R. Doc. 43. 3 defendant’s right to be free of the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. Id. But qualified im m unity does not shield government officials from all discovery. Id. It only protects from discovery that is avoidable or overly broad, such as “discovery designed to flesh out the m erits of a plaintiff’s claim before a ruling on the im m unity defense.” Id. A district court m ay perm it lim ited discovery against a defendant with an im m unity defense when the court “‘is unable to rule on the im m unity defense without further clarification of the facts[,]’ and when the discovery order is ‘narrowly tailored to uncover only those facts needed to rule on the im m unity claim .’” W icks v. Miss. State Em p’t Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 994 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Lion Boulos, 934 F.2d at 50 7-0 8). Defendants allege—and plaintiffs do not dispute—that a significant am ount of discovery has already taken place in connection with defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgment. 17 Defendants assert that as of J une 12, 20 18, they had deposed three of the four plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs had deposed thirteen police officers. 18 Plaintiffs state that an additional five depositions were scheduled to take place on J uly 19, 20 18, one day after defendants’ m otion for sum mary judgment and the present motion were fully 17 18 R. Doc. 42-1 at 2. Id. 4 subm itted. 19 Plaintiffs assert that those five depositions are relevant to the factual issues raised in defendants’ imm unity claim . 20 Plaintiffs appear to argue that defendants’ stay m otion should be denied because some “anticipated further pretrial discovery” in addition to the J uly 19 depositions will be necessary to adjudicate defendants’ im m unity defense. 21 But plaintiffs do not state what that additional discovery will be, or why the Court would need to see this additional discovery before ruling on defendants’ sum m ary judgment m otion, which is already fully subm itted. Defendants’ m otion to stay discovery is granted. The parties have already conducted an am ple am ount of discovery in connection with defendants’ im m unity defense, and—with the exception of the J uly 19 depositions—the fruit of that discovery is already before the Court in the parties’ sum mary judgm ent argum ents. Plaintiffs have failed to explain why any additional discovery is necessary for the Court to adjudicate defendants’ im m unity defense. The Court finds that any additional discovery while defendants’ m otion is pending would be avoidable or overly broad. See Lion Boulos, 834 F.2d at 50 7. 19 R. Doc. 43 at 2. Plaintiffs state that these five depositions were scheduled for J uly 19 before defendants filed their m otion for a stay of discovery. Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. at 3. 5 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ m otion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed until the Court rules on defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgment. 22 1st New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of August, 20 18. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 22 R. Doc. 35. 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
