Moss v. City of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANDREW MOSS, Plaintiff, 23 Civ. 1632 (PAE) ~ ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK, ef al, Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: At today’s initial pretrial conference in this case, the Court heard from both parties as to whether discovery should be bifurcated with respect to plaintiff's Monel! claim. The Court concludes that efficiency and convenience favor deferring discovery on plaintiff's Monel! claim until resolution of defendants’ anticipated motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs other claims. See Ricciuti v. N.¥.C. Transit Auth., 796 F. Supp. 84, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (bifurcation of discovery can be ordered to “avoid prejudice,” “provide for convenience,” or “expedite proceedings and be economical”). Staying discovery of the Monei/ claim for the time being will save the parties time and expense. Ifthe summary judgment motion is granted, the parties will have avoided the need to conduct such discovery altogether; if some claims survive summary judgment, any ensuing Monell discovery will be more closely tailored to the surviving claims. See, e.g., Tabor v. City of New York, No. 11 Civ. 195 (FB) (CLP), 2012 WL 603561, at *9-11 (E.D.N_Y. Feb. 23, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 869424 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2012) (bifurcating Monell discovery pending resolution of summary judgment motion).

SO ORDERED. f wand /\ é A gp PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge Dated: November 2, 2023 New York, New York