Griffoul v. Bridge Metaverse, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-07540
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Griffoul v. Bridge Metaverse, LLC, Judge Schofield stayed Packman-related discovery pending his motion to dismiss.
Defendant Michael Packman, as to whom discovery was stayed; the plaintiffs’ claims and Packman’s motion to dismiss were not decided by this order.
What happened
In Griffoul v. Bridge Metaverse, LLC, the plaintiffs brought claims under New York law, including wage-related statutory and common-law claims. They had withdrawn their federal Fair Labor Standards Act claims in an amended complaint.
Defendant Michael Packman asked the court to pause discovery while his motion to dismiss was pending. His letter also cited the recent service of a co-defendant and the plaintiffs’ failure to provide initial disclosures required by the court’s scheduling order.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Packman’s motion and stayed discovery as to him until the court resolves his motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 32.
The detailed version
- Griffoul v. Bridge Metaverse, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07540
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed the action on October 4, 2024. The original complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, the New York Labor Law, and New York common law. After Packman filed a letter stating his intention to seek dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserted statutory and common-law claims only under New York law and withdrew the Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Motion
Defendant Michael Packman moved by letter for a protective order staying discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) while his motion to dismiss was pending. Packman’s letter also pointed to the recent service of a co-defendant who had not yet filed an answer or appeared through counsel, and to the plaintiffs’ failure to provide initial disclosures required by the court’s scheduling order.
Ruling
The court granted Packman’s motion to stay discovery for substantially the reasons stated in his letters at docket entries 32 and 36. Discovery was stayed as to Packman pending resolution of his motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 32. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.