Lovell v. Roberts

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BARBARA J. LOVELL, Plaintiff, 24-CV-2873 (JAV) v.

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BRONX NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S AND MOTION TO DISMISS OFFICE, BRIEFING SCHEDULE Defendants.

JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge: This case has been reassigned to the undersigned. All parties must familiarize themselves with the Court’s Individual Practices, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon- jeannette-vargas. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines shall remain in effect notwithstanding the case’s reassignment. Under the Court’s individual practices, pre-motion conferences are not required. It is HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduled pre-motion conference on Wednesday, December 18, 2024, is cancelled. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must file their motion to dismiss no later than Thursday, January 16, 2025. Plaintiff has until Monday, March 3, 2025, to file a response to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants have until Monday, March 17, 2025, to file a reply to Plaintiff’s response. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the request to stay discovery is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court has discretion to stay discovery for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Good cause may be shown where a party has filed a dispositive motion, the stay is for a short period of time, and the opposing party will not be prejudiced by the stay.” Spencer Trask Software & Info. Servs., LLC v. RPost Int'l, 206 F.R.D. 367, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Discovery may be stayed pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss, however “the issuance of a stay is by no means automatic.” Jn re WRT Energy Sec. Litig., No. 96 Civ. 3610, 1996 WL 580930, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 1996). Before granting a stay, “a court should consider the breadth of discovery sought and the burden of responding to it, as well as the strength of the underlying motion.” Jntegrated Sys. & Power, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 5874, 2009 WL 2777076, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009). Defendants have not adequately explained why the Court should grant their motion to stay discovery. Accordingly, Defendants are welcome to file a letter-motion requesting a stay of discovery which addresses the factors discussed above. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate ECF Nos. 34 and 36. Dated: December 17, 2024 New York, New York {ae ulti J EC : Ag) JEANNETTE A. VARGAS United States District Judge