United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
ALBERT E. WOOLUM, Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, SAMUEL DIGBY, and OFFICER DOES 1-9, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT LIMITED DISCOVERY (OUT OF TIME)
L. HORAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Albert E. Woolum, through counsel, brought this civil rights
action against the City of Dallas, one named Dallas police
officer, and several John Doe Dallas police officers.
See Dkt. No. 1.
States District Judge Jane J. Boyle referred this action to
the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial
management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Dkt.
now moves for leave to obtain discovery related to Defendant
Samuel Digby's defense of qualified immunity, seeking to
depose Digby, require that the City respond to
thirty-numbered requests for production, and require that
Digby respond to eighteen-numbered requests for production
and answer nine-numbered interrogatories. See Dkt.
certificate of conference included in the motion for leave
represents that counsel for Defendants indicated on September
24, 2019 that Woolum's motion for leave was unopposed,
although the motion itself was not filed until December 4,
2019. See Id. at 2.
Court DENIES the motion for these reasons.
25, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Digby's motion to dismiss without prejudice to
Woolum's filing an amended complaint by July 9, 2019.
See Dkt. No. 24; see also Dkt. No. 23. No.
amended complaint was filed. Digby therefore answered the
original complaint. See Dkt. No. 25. And, through
his answer, Digby asserted qualified immunity. See
id., ¶¶ 2.5, 2.6, & 2.7.
August 19, 2019, Digby filed a court-ordered motion for
summary judgment on this nominally affirmative defense.
See Dkt. Nos. 29 & 30; see also Dkt.
No. 28. Two days later, the Court allowed Woolum leave to
file a motion for leave to conduct limited discovery to
respond to the qualified immunity issues raised in the
summary judgment motion by September 21, 2019. See
Dkt. No. 31. But no motion was filed.
September 17, 2019, the Court struck and unfiled Woolum's
untimely response to the City's renewed motion to dismiss
that further requested leave to file an out-of-time amended
complaint [Dkt. No. 32] without prejudice to his re-filing
the response and motion for leave out of time only after his
counsel conferred with counsel for Defendants, see
Dkt. No. 33. Woolum failed to re-file either his response or
his motion for leave.
November 6, 2019, the Court ordered Woolum to file a written
response to the motion for summary judgment by December 6,
2019. The current motion for leave was filed two days before
this response deadline.
Standards and Analysis
Court set out in its August 21, 2019 order inviting Woolum to
file a motion for leave to conduct limited discovery in order
to respond to the qualified immunity issues raised in the
summary judgment motion,
[a]ll discovery is typically stayed pending a ruling on a
defendant's entitlement to the defense of qualified
immunity. See Wicks v. Miss. State Employment Servs.,
Inc., 41 F.3d 991, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1995); accord
Foreman v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys. Health Sci. Ctr.,
No. 3:08-cv-1469-L, 2008 WL 494267, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 12,
2008) (citing Wicks in ruling that discovery is
stayed pending a ruling on an individual defendant's
dispositive motion); see also Zapata v. Melson, 750
F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2014); Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d