Opinion
21-CV-7090 (PGG) (BCM)
12-12-2022
LAURA DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DISCOVERY
BARBARA MOSES, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 25, 2022, plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (SAC), alleging claims against defendant for race discrimination and defamation. (Dkt. 28.) On November 16, 2022, defendant moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the SAC. (Dkt. 41.) Defendant's motion also sought a stay of discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) during the pendency of the motion to dismiss. On November 22, 2022, plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss by filing a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) (Dkt. 44), which the Court has construed as a motion to amend, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), because plaintiff did not obtain the Court's leave or defendant's consent for the amendment before filing the TAC. (Dkt. 45.) On November 29, 2022, plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 46), in which she also sought reconsideration of my order construing the TAC as a motion for leave to further amend. However, plaintiff did not oppose the requested discovery stay. On December 6, 2022, defendant filed its reply brief (Dkt. 47), noting that non-opposition.
Given the pendency of a "potentially dispositive motion" that "appears to have substantial grounds," Johnson v. New York Univ. School of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., 2002 WL 88278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted), and in light of plaintiff's non-opposition, the branch of defendant's motion requesting a discovery stay is hereby GRANTED. Discovery in this action is hereby STAYED pending the outcome of the pending motions to dismiss and for leave to amend, or further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED.