McSweeney v. Cohen
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-01503
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In McSweeney v. Cohen, Judge Liman denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery without prejudice because they failed to show good cause.
Leah McSweeney and the defendants—Andy Cohen, Lisa Shannon, John Paparazzo, Darren Ward, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Shed Media US, Inc., NBCUniversal Media, LLC, and Bravo Media, LLC—remain subject to the case’s discovery process; the defendants’ request to pause discovery was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In McSweeney v. Cohen, the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while it considered their motion to dismiss Leah McSweeney’s amended complaint. McSweeney opposed the request. The defendants argued, among other things, that the First Amendment protected the conduct alleged in the complaint and that discovery would be burdensome.
The court found that the defendants had not shown a sufficient burden from discovery or a strong enough likelihood that their motion to dismiss would end the entire case. It also noted that the parties’ discovery schedule did not require document requests and interrogatories to begin until September 21, 2024, and that objections to particular requests or a request for a protective order could address overbreadth concerns.
Judge Liman denied the motion to stay discovery without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- McSweeney v. Cohen · No. 1:24-cv-01503
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 5, 2024
Background
Andy Cohen, Lisa Shannon, John Paparazzo, Darren Ward, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Shed Media US, Inc., NBCUniversal Media, LLC, and Bravo Media, LLC moved to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss Leah McSweeney’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim was pending. McSweeney opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery. The defendants had to show good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court considered the scope and burden of the requested discovery, possible prejudice to McSweeney, and the strength of the motion to dismiss. A stay is more strongly supported when the motion could dispose of the entire case, but the moving party must show substantial grounds for dismissal or make a strong showing that the motion is likely to succeed.
Court’s analysis
The defendants argued, among other things, that the conduct alleged in the amended complaint was protected by the First Amendment. McSweeney argued that the First Amendment does not provide immunity from discrimination claims. The court stated that there were strong arguments on both sides and that the defendants would need to prevail on several arguments, not only the First Amendment arguments, for the motion to dismiss to end the entire case.
The court also found that the defendants’ claimed discovery burden was speculative and based largely on the length of the amended complaint and the number of defendants and third parties identified in it. The defendants did not show the burden of responding to discovery during the period when the court would resolve the motion to dismiss. Although the case was in its early stages, briefing on the motion to dismiss was advanced, and the scheduling order did not require document requests and interrogatories to be served until September 21, 2024. The parties had until April 11, 2025, to complete fact discovery.
The court said that objections to individual requests that were overbroad or exceeded the Federal or Local Rules should be raised in discovery responses, followed by a meet-and-confer process. If the parties could not agree, the defendants could seek a protective order. The court also stated that permitting document requests and document subpoenas could protect McSweeney from possible loss or destruction of evidence.
Disposition
The court held that the defendants had not shown good cause to stay discovery. It denied the motion without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Dkt. No. 75. This order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.