United States v. LabQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-10313
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In United States v. LabQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC, Judge Liman denied the defendants’ requests to stay or pause discovery.
The defendants’ discovery obligations were not stayed or paused, and the government was permitted to continue pursuing discovery.
What happened
United States v. LabQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC concerns the defendants’ request to stop discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending.
The court denied both the request for a stay and the alternative request for a discovery pause. It found that the defendants had not made a strong enough showing that their motion to dismiss would succeed, and that the scope of discovery did not justify stopping it. The court also found that the government showed it would be harmed by a stay.
Judge Lewis J. Liman directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- United States v. LabQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10313
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 21, 2025
Background
The defendants moved to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. They also requested, in the alternative, a discovery “pause.”
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a motion to dismiss does not automatically stop discovery, except in cases covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The defendants had not made the required strong showing that their motion to dismiss would succeed, at least in its entirety and to an extent that would affect discovery. The court also concluded that the breadth of discovery did not justify a stay, particularly because the defendants had not yet responded to merits discovery requests. In addition, the government had shown that it would be prejudiced by a stay.
Ruling
The court denied the defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery. It also denied the alternative request for a discovery pause. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 348. This order did not resolve the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.