Hickman v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK penne nen eee K QUANDELL HICKMAN : Plaintiff, : ORDER -V.- : 24 Civ. 3421 (VSB) (GWG) NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONS AND : COMMUNITY SUPERVISION et al., Defendants. penne nen eee K GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE With regard to the motion for a stay of discovery (Docket # 24), the Court has reviewed the plaintiff's opposition (Docket # 35) and the underlying motion to dismiss. As described in Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), a court deciding a motion to stay discovery will consider “(1) the breadth of discovery sought, (2) any prejudice that would result, and (3) the strength of the motion.” Here, plaintiff provides no information on the breadth of discovery that he intends to seek and thus it is difficult to gauge either this factor or what prejudice would result from a stay. Nonetheless, our consideration of the merits of the motion to dismiss convinces us that defendants have raised substantial arguments for dismissal. Therefore, this factor, which is the most significant, favors defendants’ motion for a stay. Accordingly, discovery is stayed pending disposition of the motion to dismiss. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2025 New York, New York Sb af ose United States Magistrate Judge