William Thomas, et. al. | C.A. No. 94-2742 Plaintiffs pro se, | Judge Charles R. Richey | v. | | The United States, et. al. | Defendants. |
Take Discovery by Other than Stenographic Means" and the Defendants' "Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss." Under the applicable law, the Defendants are entitled to the requested stay. "Where public official defendants invoking an immunity from suit are involved . . '[d]iscovery is itself one of the burdens from which defendants are sheltered by the immunity doctrine.'" Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237, 256-57 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Martin v. MetroDolitan Police Dep't, 812 F.2d 1425, 1430 (D.C. Cir.), vacated in part, 817 F.2d 144 (D.C. vacated Dart reinstated, 824 F.2d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion shall be granted.
Discovery by Other Than Stenographic Means until the Motion to Dismiss is resolved. The Court appreciates that the Plaintiffs are anxious to conduct discovery, but the Court is obliged to follow the law affording the Defendants a stay of discovery under these circumstances. However, once the Motion to Dismiss becomes ripe (a date postponed by virtue of the Plaintiffs' Motions for extension of time), the Court shall rule on the same as soon as the business of the Court permits. Upon resolution of the Motion to dismiss, the Court shall establish an expedited schedule for discovery and set a hearing date as soon thereafter as reasonably possible. The Court shares the Plaintiffs wish to resolve this matter quickly, but the Court wishes to do so in a just manner that is consistent with the law and fair to both parties.
without prejudice to the right of the Plaintiff to renew the same after the Court has had an opportunity to consider the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiffs' Opposition thereto or, alternatively, at the end of the proceedings in this case; and it is