Summary
granting a stay of discovery merely because there were "threshold issues concerning arbitration"
Summary of this case from Ahmad v. DayOpinion
No. 05 Civ. 7116 (WHP).
January 6, 2006
Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq., Berger Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, On Behalf of All Plaintiffs.
Peter E. Greene, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP, New York, NY, On Behalf of All Defendants.
ORDER
By letter application, dated November 4, 2005, Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending the resolution of their motion to stay claims in favor of arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 and their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs oppose that application.
In view of the threshold issues concerning arbitration, this Court concludes that a stay of discovery is appropriate. See, e.g., Intertec Contracting A/S v. Turner Steiner Int'l, S.A., No. 98 Civ. 9116 (CSH), 2001 WL 812224, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2001); Brockmeyer v. May, No. 98 Civ. 5521 (DLC), 1999 WL 191547, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 1999).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record on January 4, 2006, Defendants' application for a limited stay of discovery pending the resolution of their motion to stay this proceeding in favor of arbitration is granted.
SO ORDERED: