Opinion
23-CV-9839 (LAP)
07-22-2024
NICOLE RIOS, Plaintiff, v. MAX MARA USA INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
LORETTA A. PRESKA, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court is in receipt of the letter submitted by the parties in the above-captioned case in which the parties jointly (a) propose a briefing schedule on Defendants' forthcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and (b) request a stay of discovery pending the Court's decision on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See dkt. no. 33.)
The Court hereby adopts the parties' proposed briefing schedule. Defendants shall file their motion for judgment on the pleadings no later than August 16, 2024, Plaintiff shall file her opposition no later than September 10, 2024, and Defendants shall file their reply by September 25, 2024.
In addition, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court also grants the parties' request to stay discovery pending a decision on Defendants' forthcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings.
“Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may grant a motion to stay discovery” until the Court resolves a pending dispositive motion. Camara v. Alltran Fin, LP, 2021 WL 8531660, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2021). The Court has “‘considerable discretion to stay discovery' pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c)” if a party makes such a showing of good cause. Delgado v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 329 F.R.D. 506, 508 (S.D.N.Y 2019) (quoting Republic of Turkey v. Christie's, Inc., 316 F.Supp.3d 675, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). When evaluating good cause, courts “consider multiple factors, including the breadth of discovery sought, the burden of responding to it, the prejudice that would result to the party opposing the stay, and the strength of the pending motion forming the basis of the request for stay.” Shulman v. Becker & Poliakoff, LLP, 2018 WL 4938808, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2018) (internal quotations and citations omitted). As to the final factor, “the ‘strength of the motion' is satisfied by a showing that there are ‘substantial grounds' for dismissal or, put otherwise, a ‘strong showing that [motion] is likely to succeed on the merits.'” Camara, 2021 WL 8531660, at *1 (quoting Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)).
Here, all parties agree that a stay of discovery is in their best interests. Accordingly, there is no reason to think that any party would be prejudiced if the Court granted the motion for a stay. The parties have also jointly articulated that they anticipate conducting expansive discovery, including seeking substantial document production and deposition testimony from third parties. (See dkt. no. 33 at 1.) Thus, at this early stage of the instant litigation, in which the parties have only just exchanged initial discovery requests and are preparing to brief a potentially dispositive motion, the Court finds that the breadth of anticipated discovery and the burden on all parties to respond to such discovery weighs heavily in favor of granting the requested stay. Finally, although Defendants have not yet filed their motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court once again notes that the motion could be case-dispositive and, “without intimating any view on the appropriate outcome of the [anticipated] motion,” see Lu v. Cheer Holding, Inc., 2024 WL 1718821, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2024), takes account of the strong arguments for dismissal that Defendants made in their July 2, 2024, letter motion in which they advised the Court of their bases for the anticipated motion, (see dkt. no. 27).
Accordingly, the Court finds that each of the relevant factors weighs in favor of a stay of discovery and hereby grants the parties' joint letter motion for such a stay pending the Court's decision on Defendants' forthcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk of the Court shall close docket entry number 33.
SO ORDERED.