Robbins v. Candy Digital, Inc.

Background

Fanatics, LLC and Fanatics Holdings, Inc. moved to stay, meaning pause, all discovery or alternatively all discovery involving them. They sought the stay while awaiting resolution of an anticipated motion to dismiss. Charles Robbins opposed the motion. The opinion addresses only whether discovery should be stayed; it does not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a party seeking to stay discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending must show good cause. Courts consider the breadth of the requested discovery, the prejudice that could result, and the strength of the motion to dismiss.

The Fanatics Defendants primarily argued that Robbins’s amended complaint had not fixed the pleading problems in his original complaint. The court found that the amended complaint added allegations relevant to whether the Fanatics Defendants employed Robbins as joint employers or otherwise, including an allegation that Robbins interviewed with Fanatics Holdings, Inc. before he was hired. The court therefore concluded that it was not obvious that the anticipated motion to dismiss was likely to succeed.

The court also noted that some discovery could be obtained from the Fanatics Defendants even if they were not named as defendants. It further found that excluding them from discovery could significantly prejudice Robbins and create delay and additional expense. Discovery would continue against the remaining defendants, and staying discovery as to the Fanatics Defendants could require Robbins to complete discovery first and then repeat it if the anticipated motion to dismiss were denied. The court considered that result inefficient and concluded that the Fanatics Defendants had not shown good cause for a stay.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to stay discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 96. The ruling did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.