Malcolm Squirewell v. City of New York

Opinion

USDC SDNY

CANES, ELECTRONICALLY FILED a eet DOC# BOSE DATE FILED:__ 06/24/2026

THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT Comporanion Coumel 100 CHURCH STREET Assistant Conmevation Couns NEW YORK, NY 10007 Labor & Employment Divisio (212) 356-247 npandey@law.nyc.go

VIA ECF APPLICATION DENIED: The ICMC scheduled for Jui Hon. Katharine H. Parker 25, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. will proceed as scheduled. United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York □□ Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse thaw 500 Pearl Street, Room 750 KATHARINE H. PARKER New York, NY 10007 United States Magistrate Judge Re: Malcolm Squirewell v. City of New York 06/24/2026 1:26-CV-02498 (MMG) (KHP) Dear Honorable Katharine H. Parker: Lam an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel_of the City of New York, attorney for Defendant the City of New York (“City”). Defendant writes to respectfully request that Your Honor stay discovery, pursuant to FRCP 26(c), and adjourn the Initial Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for June 25, 2026 at 12:00 pm sine die. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a former employee of the New York City Department of Corrections (“DOC”), alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he experienced interference with his federally protected rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, deprivation of earned wages, and violations of his procedural Due Process rights. Plaintiff brings this action under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Your Honor previously granted Defendant an extension of time until June 26, 2026 to respond to the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14. Defendant intends to file a fully dispositive motion to dismiss before Hon. Judge Margaret M. Garnett by that date. Defendants intends to move to dismiss on res judicate and collateral estoppel grounds given that Plaintiff previously filed

complaints before the New York State Human Rights Division and in New York Couty Supreme Court for the same alleged facts. With Defendant’s anticipated motion, and given its fully-dispositive grounds, a stay of discovery is respectfully requested pending resolution of the motion. Chesney v. Valley Stream Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 24, No. 05-CV-5106 (DRH) (ETB), 236 F.R.D. 113, 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). A stay of discovery is appropriate, given the likelihood of success of Defendant’s motion. See O’Sullivan v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 17-CV-8709 (LTS) (GWG), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70418 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018) (staying discovery where defendants “made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on their motion to dismiss”); Telesca v. Long Island Hous. P’ship, Inc., No. 05-CV-5509 (ADS) (ETB), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24311, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2006) (staying discovery where defendants’ motion raised “substantial issues with regard to the viability of plaintiffs’ complaint”); Johnson v. N. Y. Univ. Sch. of Educ., 00-CV-8117 (WK) (RLE), 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (staying discovery where defendants’ motion was “potentially dispositive,” did not appear unfounded in law, and would potentially “obviate the need for burdensome discovery”). This is Defendant’s first request to stay discovery. Plaintiff has not consented to this request, stating that they “…need this conference to address discovery of records within defendants exclusive possession,” and that further delay would harm his “positioning”. However, Plaintiff would not suffer any prejudice if discovery were stayed. Amron v. 3M Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., No. 23-CV-08959 (PKC) (JMW), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12759, *8 (E.D.N.Y Jan. 24, 2024). Defendant has made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed in their motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. In addition, Defendant would suffer undue expense if discovery were to continue, and the case were dismissed. See United States v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 99-CV-3334 (ADS), 188 F.R.D. 187, 189 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1999) (granting stay of discovery where “…the cost of discovery, coupled with the diversion of employees’ time and attention from municipal business to focus on the retrieval of discovery and to otherwise assist in the pursuit of this litigation, would be an unnecessary expense in the event [the pending] motion to dismiss is ultimately granted.”). Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court stay discovery pending decision on Defendant’s anticipated motion to dismiss and adjourn the Initial Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for June 25, 2026, sine die. Thank you for the Court’s consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nikhil A. Pandey Nikhil A. Pandey Assistant Corporation Counsel cc: Malcolm Squirewell 1602 Pacific Street, 4A Brooklyn, New York 11213