Brandon v. Sensio, Inc.

Background

Delana Brandon filed this proposed class action against Sensio, Inc., alleging that a defective pressure cooker made by Sensio burned her. She asserts claims under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and for unjust enrichment, and seeks certification of a nationwide class of consumers who purchased similarly defective products.

Sensio moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Brandon’s claims are untimely and inadequately pleaded. Sensio then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to stay, or pause, discovery while the dismissal motion is pending. Sensio argued that its statute-of-limitations defense was strong, that the nationwide discovery Brandon sought would be burdensome, and that Brandon would not be prejudiced by a stay. Brandon conceded that the stay would not prejudice her, but disputed the strength of Sensio’s arguments and argued that Sensio could not claim discovery would be burdensome before she had served discovery requests.

Legal standard and analysis

The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery. A stay requires “good cause,” and courts generally consider the strength of the dismissal motion, the scope and burden of the requested discovery, and the prejudice to the party opposing the stay.

The court found that Sensio had presented substantial arguments for dismissal. In particular, Sensio relied on decisions in earlier related proceedings involving similar claims against Sensio, including one in which a court found that the plaintiff knew of the claim when injured and that there was no basis to extend the filing deadline. The court noted Brandon’s argument about Virginia’s equitable tolling principles but expressly declined to predict the outcome of the dismissal motion.

The court also found that the discovery would be broad because Brandon seeks to represent a nationwide class and Sensio stated that it had recalled more than 800,000 pressure cookers across several product lines. The proposed discovery included document requests, written questions, and requests for admissions. Finally, Brandon conceded that she would not be prejudiced by the stay.

Disposition

The court granted Sensio’s motion to stay discovery pending Judge Ronnie Abrams’s decision on the motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself. The court also required Sensio, by December 27, 2024, to file a declaration from its counsel stating that Sensio had issued a litigation hold or otherwise preserved documents relating to Brandon’s injuries and claims. The order directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion docket entry.