Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-08790
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Inc., Judge Cronan ordered a response to a request to pause discovery while a dismissal motion is pending.
Viktor Leshchenko and Go New York Tours, Inc.; the order required Leshchenko to respond to the defendant’s request to pause discovery.
What happened
In Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Inc., the defendant asked the court to pause evidence gathering while its motion to dismiss the complaint was pending. The plaintiff opposed that request.
The defendant argued that discovery could require depositions, written requests, and possibly expert evidence, and that a stay would avoid unnecessary expense if the case were dismissed. It also argued that a short pause would not harm the plaintiff and that its dismissal motion raised substantial arguments about the retaliation claims.
Judge John P. Cronan did not decide whether to stay discovery or whether to dismiss the case. Instead, he ordered the plaintiff to file a response of no more than three pages by February 13, 2025.
The detailed version
- Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-08790
- John Cronan
- Feb. 6, 2025
Background
Viktor Leshchenko sued Go New York Tours, Inc., doing business as TopView Sightseeing. The complaint alleges retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendant filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks the court to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a legally sufficient claim.
The defendant then asked to stay, or pause, all discovery until the court decides that motion. The opinion text states that no discovery requests had yet been served and that the plaintiff did not consent to the proposed stay.
Defendant’s Arguments
The defendant argued that discovery would likely include several depositions, a deposition of the corporation, written discovery, and possibly expert discovery concerning alleged emotional distress. It argued that proceeding with discovery could waste time and resources if the motion to dismiss eliminated the case.
The defendant also argued that a short stay would not prejudice Leshchenko because the case had been filed recently and the briefing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled to finish on March 14, 2025. Finally, the defendant asserted that the motion to dismiss was substantially supported because Leshchenko allegedly had not plausibly pleaded protected activity or that the defendant understood him to be opposing conduct prohibited by the cited laws.
What the Court Did
Judge John P. Cronan did not rule on the request to stay discovery in the order provided. The court ordered Leshchenko to file a letter response of no more than three pages by February 13, 2025. The order also did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of the retaliation claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.