Simpson-Quin v. Montejano
- Garnett
- 1:23-cv-08113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Simpson-Quin v. Montejano, Judge Garnett denied Montejano’s motion to stay discovery while her motion to dismiss remained pending.
The ruling directly affected Defendant Alyssa Montejano’s request to pause discovery and allowed discovery in Plaintiff Lucien Simpson-Quin’s case to continue.
What happened
In Simpson-Quin v. Montejano, Defendant Alyssa Montejano asked the court to pause discovery until it decided her motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Lucien Simpson-Quin opposed the request, arguing that Montejano had not shown a sufficient reason for the pause and that it would unfairly affect him, including because he had arranged international travel for a scheduled deposition.
The court found that the discovery appeared consistent with the claims, was not shown to be excessively burdensome, and was already well underway. The court also found that pausing discovery could unfairly harm Simpson-Quin because of his preparation and travel arrangements. Finally, the court said the parties’ arguments about the motion to dismiss were both strong and did not show that Simpson-Quin’s claims were clearly without merit.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Montejano’s motion to stay discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion from the docket. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Simpson-Quin v. Montejano · No. 1:23-cv-08113
- Garnett
- July 9, 2024
Background
On June 21, 2024, Defendant Alyssa Montejano filed a motion asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery while her motion to dismiss was pending. Montejano argued that her motion to dismiss was likely to succeed, that Plaintiff Lucien Simpson-Quin’s amended consolidated complaint and the statements in it were generalized and conclusory, and that Simpson-Quin could not rely on discovery to establish a claim. Simpson-Quin opposed the motion, arguing that Montejano had not shown good cause for a stay and that a stay would prejudice him. He stated that he was planning to travel to the United States from Australia for a deposition scheduled for July 18, 2024.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. Courts consider factors including the scope of the requested discovery, the burden of responding, the prejudice to the party opposing the stay, and the strength of the motion supporting the request. The court has substantial discretion in deciding whether to stay discovery.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that a stay was not justified. First, Montejano did not show that the scope of discovery or the burden of responding supported a stay. The discovery she identified was consistent with the claims, and based on the parties’ limited submissions, it did not appear excessive or disproportionate to the needs of the case. The court also noted that fact discovery was nearing its end and that the deadline for exchanging responsive documents had already passed. Montejano’s concern about anticipated electronic discovery and third-party subpoenas came too late in the discovery period to establish that continuing discovery would be too burdensome.
Second, the court found that Simpson-Quin could suffer unfair prejudice if discovery were stayed. He had made significant international travel and family arrangements for the July 18 deposition, and he and his counsel had likely begun preparing for it. A stay could require that preparation to be repeated if discovery later resumed.
Third, the court considered the strength of Montejano’s motion to dismiss. The court said that most of Montejano’s arguments involved fact-specific questions about the truth of alleged statements attributed to her and whether those statements were properly attributed to her. Both sides presented strong arguments. Because Montejano had not made the required strong showing that Simpson-Quin’s claim was without merit, this factor also did not support a stay.
Disposition
The court ordered that Defendant Montejano’s motion to stay discovery, Dkt. No. 46, was DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate that motion. The order addressed the discovery stay only and did not rule on the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.