Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Katzoff

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : ASSET CO IM REST, LLC et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : 23 Civ. 9691 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER GERALD “JERRY” KATZOFF et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions on Defendants’ request for a discovery stay pending their anticipated motions to dismiss, Dkt. 86 (“Defendants’ Letter”), 89 (“Plaintiffs’ Letter”), and denies the request. “[U]pon a showing of good cause[,] a district court has considerable discretion to stay discovery pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c).” Morgan Art Found Ltd. v. McKenzie, No. 18 Civ. 4438 (AT) (BCM), 2020 WL 6135113, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2020). “In evaluating whether a stay of discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss is appropriate, courts typically consider: (1) whether the Defendants has made a strong showing that the plaintiff’s claim is unmeritorious; (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it; and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.” Palladino v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 23 Civ. 1215 (MKB) (JAM), 2024 WL 312522, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The burden is on the movant to establish that a stay is warranted.” Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 22 Civ. 82 (RA), 2023 WL 2214884, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Turning to the first prong, and as Plaintiffs point out, the Court will not prejudge the merits of Defendants’ motions but has already found a likelihood of success on the merits as to the Il Mulino Tribeca Trade Dress-related Lanham Act claims. See Plaintiffs’ Letter at 1; see generally Dkt. 72. And while that prior finding leaves a number of other claims for which Defendants seek dismissal, Defendants do not appear to claim that their motions would entirely dispose of this case, but rather of “claims[] or even entire parties.” Defendants’ Letter at 2. As to Defendants’ objection to the breadth of discovery, “courts have declined to issue a stay where defendants fail to show why discovery would be burdensome.” Nielsen Co. (US) LLC v. TVSquared LTD, No. 23 Civ. 1581 (VSB), 2023 WL 4363005, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023). Here, Defendants only point to one of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests—to which they can object through the ordinary course, as Plaintiffs point out, see Plaintiffs’ Letter at 2—and object more broadly to Plaintiffs’ “similarly expansive requests.” Defendants’ Letter at 2-3. While the Court cannot gainsay Defendants’ observation that a grant of their motions could trim the questions at issue in this matter, the Court is equally hard-pressed to grant a stay motion in the absence of “any . . . [specific] indicator that might demonstrate why discovery will be overly burdensome,” id. Given these two factors, even a finding of no prejudice to Plaintiffs would not counsel in favor of a stay. See Morgan Art Found., 2020 WL 6135113, at *3 (“The caselaw makes it clear that no one factor is dispositive of a discovery stay motion.”’). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for a discovery stay is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket Number 86. SO ORDERED. —VbfB Dated: February 21, 2024 ° New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge