Hickman v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-03421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hickman v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein stayed discovery while defendants’ motion to dismiss remains pending.
The stay pauses discovery for all parties in Hickman’s case until the defendants’ motion to dismiss is decided.
What happened
In Hickman v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision, the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss was considered.
The court noted that Hickman provided no information about the discovery he intended to seek, making it difficult to evaluate the scope of discovery or possible harm from a stay. The court also found that the defendants had raised substantial arguments for dismissal.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered that discovery be stayed until the motion to dismiss is decided.
The detailed version
- Hickman v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 1:24-cv-03421
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
In Hickman v. New York State Corrections and Community Supervision, the defendants moved to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. Hickman opposed the request.
Court’s analysis
The court applied three considerations for deciding whether to stay discovery: the breadth of the requested discovery, any prejudice that a stay could cause, and the strength of the motion to dismiss. The court stated that Hickman provided no information about the discovery he intended to seek. As a result, the court said it was difficult to assess either the scope of discovery or the prejudice that a stay might cause.
The court nevertheless concluded that the motion to dismiss raised substantial arguments for dismissal. It treated the strength of that motion as the most significant factor and found that it favored the defendants’ request.
Ruling
The court ordered that discovery be stayed pending disposition of the motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself or the underlying claims. The opinion is signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.