Biggs v. MetroPlus Health Plan, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 17, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-10939
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CNDUROED) ia DOCUMENT iB wore ELECTRONICALLY FILED ney DOC #: arse DATE FILED:_10/17/2023 THE CITY OF NEW YORK SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX LAW DEPARTMENT ZACHARY T. ELLIS Counsel 100 CHURCH STREET Assistant Corporation Counse NEW YORK, NY 10007 Labor and Employment Law □□□□□□□□ (212) 356-083: zellis@law.nyc.gov

October 16, 2023 Via CM/ECF Honorable Valerie E. Caproni United States District Judge Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 443 New York, New York 10007 Re: Biggs, et al. v. MetroPlus Health Plan, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:22-CV-10939-VEC Law Dep’t File No. 2023-000330 Dear Judge Caproni: I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, representing Defendants, MetroPlus Health Plan, Inc., and Simran Kaur (collectively, “Defendants”), in the above-referenced action. In accord with Your Honor’s Individual Rules, I write to respectfully request that all discovery-related deadlines be stayed pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was filed on August 22, 2023, and has not yet been fully briefed. (See ECF No. 28.) Plaintiffs consent to the requested stay. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “a district court may stay discovery during the pendency of a motion to dismiss for ‘good cause’ shown.” Hollins v. U.S. Tennis Ass’n, 469 F. Supp. 2d 67, 78 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). This Court has previously held that a stay of discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion is appropriate “where the motion appear[s] to have substantial grounds or, stated another way, do[es] not appear to be without foundation in law.” Johnson v. N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alterations in original); see also Thrower v. Pozzi, No. 99 CIV. 5871 (GBD), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1035, 2002 WL 91612, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2002) (explaining that district courts may “stay discovery when resolution of a preliminary matter may dispose of the entire case”).

Here, Defendants have filed a potentially case-dispositive motion to dismiss, see Tsinberg v. City of New York, No. 20 Civ. 749 (PAE) (SLC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217002, □□□□ (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2020) (“The Court finds that there is good cause to stay discovery pending a ruling on the Motion for Dismiss because granting the Motion to Dismiss could dispose of the entire case (internal citation omitted)), and Defendants have a substantial basis in the law for the arguments raised therein. Additionally, this case is still at a preliminary stage, and any discovery would likely be burdensome, involving three plaintiffs, each of whom is complaining about a different employment action. The circumstances accordingly favor a stay. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants respectfully request that their application for a stay be granted and that all discovery-related deadlines be stayed pending the resolution of their Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Zachary T. Ellis Assistant Corporation Counsel ce: Arthur Z. Schwartz (via ECF) Advocates for Justice Counsel for Plaintiffs 225 Broadway, Suite 1902 licati New York, New York 10007 Application GRANTED. (212) 285-1400 October 17, 2023 aschwartz@advocatesny.com SO ORDERED.

HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE