Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05917
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management, Judge Liman granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery and let Abalu seek to end the stay if specified postings remained online.
The order directly affected plaintiff Oshoke Abalu and defendants Society of Human Resource Management and Jennifer McCollum by temporarily pausing discovery and extending Abalu’s deadline to file an amended complaint.
What happened
In Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management, Oshoke Abalu is the plaintiff, and Society of Human Resource Management and Jennifer McCollum are the defendants. The order memorialized rulings from a December 13, 2024, telephone conference.
The defendants asked the court to pause discovery, meaning the exchange of information and evidence in the case. The court said the requested discovery was likely broad, the risk of harm to Abalu would be small if certain social-media postings were removed, and the defendants’ arguments about improper venue, successor liability for Linkage’s actions, and McCollum’s individual liability were strong.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to stay discovery, without prejudice to Abalu moving to end the stay if the postings were not removed by December 27, 2024. Because Abalu was representing herself, Judge Liman extended her deadline to file an amended complaint to January 3, 2025. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management · No. 1:24-cv-05917
- Lewis Liman
- Dec. 13, 2024
Background
This order memorialized rulings made during a telephonic conference on December 13, 2024. Oshoke Abalu is the plaintiff. Society of Human Resource Management and Jennifer McCollum are the defendants.
Motion to Stay Discovery
The defendants moved to stay discovery, meaning to temporarily pause the parties’ exchange of information and evidence. The court considered three factors: the breadth of the requested discovery, any resulting prejudice, and the strength of the motion.
The court stated that discovery was likely to be broad because of the length of the complaint and Abalu’s statements about the discovery she sought. It also stated that the risk of prejudice to Abalu would be minimal if the social-media postings identified during the conference were taken down. In addition, the court described as strong the arguments in the defendants’ motions to dismiss concerning improper venue, Society of Human Resource Management’s successor liability for Linkage’s actions, and McCollum’s individual liability.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the defendants’ motion to stay discovery, Dkt. No. 36, without prejudice to Abalu moving to vacate the stay if the identified social-media postings had not been taken down by December 27, 2024. The court stated that the risk of prejudice could change if the postings remained online, and allowed Abalu to submit a motion to vacate the stay in that circumstance.
Because Abalu was proceeding without a lawyer, the court extended her deadline to submit an amended complaint to January 3, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 36. This order did not state a decision on the underlying claims or resolve the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.