govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-3_23-cv-00365-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 
 
ELAINE R. SMITH,  
Guardian for Thomas K. Irwin, 
a Protected Person, 
 
 Plaintiff,     Case No. 3:23-cv-365 
 
vs.  
 
MIAMI VALLEY HOSPITAL, et al.,  District Judge Michael J. Newman 
       Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. 
 Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
ORDER: (1) GRANTING, PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT’S MANDATE IN 
SMITH V. MIAMI VALLEY HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 
DISCOVERY PENDING A RULING ON THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY 
JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 37); AND (2) STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING A DECISION 
ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 68) 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Pursuant to the Sixth Circuit’s mandate in Smith v. Miami Valley Hospital, the Court 
GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery while the motion for summary judgment, 
which raises qualified immunity, is  under consideration.  Doc. No. 37; 172 F.4th 945, 949 (6th 
Cir. 2026) (“When the district court is ‘faced with a motion based on qualified immunity,’ it cannot 
‘avoid ruling on the issue’ by simply ordering further discovery”) (quoting Everson v. Leis , 556 
F.3d 484, 492 (6th Cir. 2009)); see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (“Until this 
threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed”); see also Summers v. 
Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 886 (6th Cir. 2004) (“The purpose of a qualified immunity defense is not only 
protection from civil damages but protection from the rigors of litigation itself, including the 
potential disruptiveness of discovery”); Skousen v. Brighton High School, 305 F.3d 520, 527 (6th 
Cir. 2022) (“ Rather than dismiss the [summary judgment] motion because discovery was not 
Case: 3:23-cv-00365-MJN-PBS Doc #: 70 Filed: 06/11/26 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
complete, the district court was required to determine —prior to permitting further discovery—
whether [Plaintiff ’s] complaint alleged the violation of a constitutional right at all, and if so, 
whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation…Only then, and only 
on a finding that material facts were in dispute, was the court at liberty to hold the [summary 
judgment] motion in abeyance pending discovery”). 
As such, f urther discovery in this case is STAYED pending the Court’s decision on the 
motion for summary judgment.  Doc. No. 68.  The Court will rule on the motion for summary 
judgment once the parties have fully briefed it. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
June 11, 2026     s/Michael J. Newman   
       Hon. Michael J. Newman 
       United States District Judge 
 
Case: 3:23-cv-00365-MJN-PBS Doc #: 70 Filed: 06/11/26 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight