Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Stevens & Company v. Espat, Judge Liman denied reconsideration of a request to pause discovery while Espat’s pleadings motion was pending.
The ruling directly affected Jason Espat’s request to pause discovery and the discovery efforts of Stevens & Company, LLC and the other parties in the case.
What happened
Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat involved Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Jason Espat’s request to reconsider a prior request to pause depositions and other discovery while his motion for judgment based on the pleadings was pending. Espat pointed to a California settlement administrator’s verbal confirmation that he was included in a group of employees affected by alleged misclassification and to the expense of responding to discovery.
Espat’s counsel argued that the California developments strengthened his motion and contradicted the position of the Stevens parties that he was not their employee. Counsel also argued that Stevens & Company, LLC and the other parties were seeking extensive discovery, including 56 document requests, and that Espat had incurred substantial electronic-discovery expenses. The opinion reports these arguments but does not decide the underlying employment claims.
In Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat, Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for reconsideration. The court specifically considered the verbal confirmation about the California settlement and the discovery expenses, but concluded that those facts did not change the balance of the equities or provide a reason to reconsider the prior order.
The detailed version
- Stevens & Company, LLC v. Espat · No. 1:24-cv-05223
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Jason Espat asked the court to reconsider his request to stay, or temporarily pause, depositions and the rest of discovery while his motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending. The opinion concerns the request for reconsideration and refers to the prior order as Dkt. No. 53.
Espat relied on developments in related California litigation involving Stevens & Company, LLC and Steven Kamali. According to the submission, counsel had received a representation that Apex Class Action LLC, the settlement administrator for a California wage-related settlement, verbally confirmed that Espat was included among employees affected by alleged misclassification practices. The submission also stated that written confirmation and a calculation of settlement amounts were expected by early March 2025.
Arguments about the requested discovery stay
Espat argued that a stay was appropriate based on the breadth of the discovery, potential prejudice, and the strength of his motion for judgment on the pleadings. His counsel asserted that the California developments strengthened Espat’s position because the Stevens parties’ position that Espat was not an employee allegedly conflicted with concessions in the California matter.
Counsel further argued that Stevens & Company, LLC and the other parties were seeking extensive and burdensome discovery. The submission identified 56 requests for production seeking documents, communications, and electronically stored information. It stated that Espat had incurred substantial costs and attorney time and that an electronic-discovery vendor had issued an invoice totaling $5,762.84 for forensic collection, processing, and data storage to that point.
Espat’s counsel also argued that the other parties would not suffer undue prejudice from a temporary stay and that pausing discovery could reduce additional expenses while the court considered the pleadings motion.
Ruling
The court denied the motion. It specifically considered both the verbal confirmation that Espat was included in the California settlement’s class of affected employees and the discovery expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by Espat. The court concluded that those facts did not change the balance of the equities or provide a reason to reconsider Dkt. No. 53.
The opinion does not state the full substance or disposition of the prior order identified as Dkt. No. 53. It also does not decide Espat’s underlying employment claims or his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.