Doe v. Anthem Healthchoice Assurance, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-08012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Doe v. Anthem, Judge Cronan stayed discovery while Anthem’s motion to dismiss was pending.
The plaintiff and Anthem Healthchoice Assurance, Inc.; discovery is paused for both sides while the court considers Anthem’s motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Doe v. Anthem Healthchoice Assurance, Inc., Anthem asked the court to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss was considered. The plaintiff agreed to the request.
The court found good cause for a temporary stay because Anthem had already filed its motion, the motion challenged the claim on preemption and exhaustion grounds, and the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the pause. The court did not decide whether the motion to dismiss should succeed.
Judge John P. Cronan stayed discovery until the court rules on Anthem’s motion to dismiss. He also postponed indefinitely the parties’ deadline to submit a case-management plan and directed the clerk to close Docket Number 27.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Anthem Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-08012
- John Cronan
- Apr. 3, 2025
Background
The plaintiff filed the complaint on October 22, 2024. Anthem filed a motion to dismiss on March 28, 2025. The parties jointly requested a stay of discovery while that motion was pending and agreed that the stay would conserve their resources and the court’s resources without causing prejudice to either side.
The court had previously ordered the parties to submit a proposed Civil Management Plan and Scheduling Order by April 4, 2025. The parties also asked the court to postpone that deadline while the motion to dismiss was pending.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the motion to dismiss, the potential burden of discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice. Without deciding the merits of Anthem’s pending motion, the court noted that Anthem challenged liability on, among other grounds, preemption and exhaustion. The court concluded that deciding whether the plaintiff had stated a claim before requiring broad discovery would avoid possible prejudice to Anthem. Because the plaintiff joined the request, the court found no resulting prejudice to the plaintiff.
Ruling
The court stayed discovery under Rule 26(c) until it rules on Anthem’s motion to dismiss. It adjourned the April 4 deadline to submit a case-management plan indefinitely and directed the clerk to close Docket Number 27. The order did not decide Anthem’s motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.