Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-08790
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Judge Cronan denied the defendant’s motion to stay discovery because it failed to show the relevant factors favored a stay.
The ruling affects the defendant’s request to pause discovery and the plaintiff’s ability to proceed with discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending.
What happened
Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Inc. involves a motion by the defendant to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s retaliation claims was pending. The plaintiff opposed the requested pause and argued that discovery could prevent evidence from being lost.
The plaintiff also argued that his claims had a sound basis, including allegations that he complained about a hostile work environment, use of an anti-gay slur, and discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court’s ruling addressed only whether discovery should be stayed, not whether those claims would succeed.
Judge John P. Cronan denied the defendant’s motion to stay discovery, finding that the defendant had not shown that the relevant factors favored a stay. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Number 22.
The detailed version
- Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-08790
- John Cronan
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
The plaintiff alleged retaliation under Title VI 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 to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint adequately states a claim, and separately moved to stay discovery while that motion was pending.
The plaintiff opposed the discovery stay. He argued that delaying discovery could prejudice him because evidence supporting his allegations could be lost or damaged. He also argued that his claims had merit, including his assertions that he engaged in protected activity by complaining about a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation, the use of an anti-gay slur in the workplace, and what he reasonably believed was unlawful discrimination.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the defendant’s motion to stay discovery. It stated that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that the relevant factors favored a stay. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 22.
The order decided only the discovery-stay request. It did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of the plaintiff’s retaliation claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.