Clark v. City of New York

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED || -! BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL tp ATTORNEYS AT Law VASUDHA TALLA DATE FILED: 12/29/2022 600 FIFTH CENTER NAIRUBY L. BECKLES Cngree tee inten Steen ve MARISSA BENAVIDES SS NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10020 DAVID BERMAN DIANE L. HOUK TEL: (212) 763-5000 NICK BOURLAND HAL RLIERERMAN Pax: @12) 763-500 ANDREW K_IONDAKE ILANN M. MAAZEL , NOEL R. LEON KATHERINE ROSENFELD SANA MAYAT ZOE SALZMAN HARVEY PRAGER SAM SHAPIRO VIVAKE PRASAD EARL S. WARD MAX SELVER O. ANDREW F. WILSON EMILY K. WANGER

December 28, 2022 By ECF Honorable Katharine H. Parker United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: — Clark, et al. v. City of New York, No. 18 Civ. 02334 (AT) (KHP) Dear Judge Parker, On behalf of the Plaintiffs, we write to request a stay of discovery while Judge Torres reviews Plaintiffs’ objections to Your Honor’s December 8, 2022 decision on absent class discovery. The City takes no position on this request. “[U]pon a showing of good cause a district court has considerable discretion to stay discovery” pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Integrated Sys. & Power, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2009 WL 2777076, at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). In deciding whether a stay is appropriate, courts will consider “[1] whether ‘the [appeal] appear[s] to have substantial grounds [,]...[2] the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it,...[and 3] the unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.” Bachayeva v. Americare Certified Special Servs., Inc., 2013 WL 4495672, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2013) (quoting In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., 2002 WL 88278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002). All three criteria are met here. First, Plaintiffs’ have presented several grounds for their objections, including a misunderstanding of the scope of the class which would render the ordered discovery unnecessary and the heavy burden on absent class members. Second, without a stay, Plaintiffs and Defendants would face a significant burden. Plaintiffs would have to first identify and enlist fifty absent class members—who may have no knowledge of this case scattered across New York City for depositions to discuss the details of their religious practices and the day of their arrest. The City for its part would have to depose the fifty class members for one and a half hours each at a time convenient for both parties. All discovery would have to

EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP Page 2

occur in less than three months and will likely be obstructed by the holiday season and time spent briefing the objection. Third, a stay would not prejudice the City. To minimize the burden on the parties and the Court, Plaintiffs request that discovery be stayed during the pendency of Plaintiffs’ objections. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matthew D. Brinckerhoff

ce. All Counsel of Record (by ECF)

Application granted. The deadline for absent class member discovery is stayed pending Judge Torres' decision regarding Plaintiff's objection to the Court's order granting limited absent class member discovery. In the event Plaintiff's objection is denied, absent class member discovery will be due 60 days after the date of Judge Torres’ order.

SO ORDERED:

HON. KATHARINE H. PARKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE = 12/29/2022