Pullman v. Collins
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:24-cv-01383
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Pullman v. Collins, Judge Karas granted a discovery stay for Plaintiff Dinsmore’s claims and denied it for all other claims.
Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff Dinsmore, and Defendants in the putative class action. Discovery was stayed for Dinsmore’s claims during her criminal trial but continued for all other claims.
What happened
In Pullman v. Collins, Defendants asked the court to pause discovery while their partial motion to dismiss was pending. They also sought a pause for Plaintiff Dinsmore’s retaliation and defamation claims because of her pending criminal proceedings.
The court found that Defendants had not shown enough burden from discovery, and that some claims—including possible unpaid-overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act—might survive the dismissal motion. The court also found that delaying discovery could prejudice Plaintiffs because of time limits and the proposed conditional class. For Dinsmore, however, the civil and criminal matters substantially overlapped, the criminal case was moving toward trial, and discovery could create a risk of self-incrimination.
Judge Karas granted the motion as to discovery on Dinsmore’s claims and denied it as to all other claims. Discovery was to continue under the agreed schedule for the other claims, and the parties were ordered to update the court within 30 days after the criminal trial ended or the charges were dismissed.
The detailed version
- Pullman v. Collins · No. 7:24-cv-01383
- Judith McCarthy
- Apr. 3, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action and had begun discovery. Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and then asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) while that motion was pending. Defendants sought a stay concerning Claims One through Thirteen and Claim Fifteen. They also sought a stay concerning Plaintiff Dinsmore’s retaliation and defamation claims because of Dinsmore’s pending criminal proceedings. Defendants were not seeking dismissal or a discovery stay for Plaintiffs’ unpaid-tip claims.
Discovery involving most Plaintiffs
The court explained that a motion to dismiss does not automatically stop discovery. A party seeking a protective order or discovery stay must show good cause. The court considered the scope and burden of discovery, the strength of the motion to dismiss, and the risk of prejudice to the party opposing the stay.
The court denied a stay for Claims One through Thirteen and Claim Fifteen as to all Plaintiffs other than Dinsmore. It found that Defendants had not specifically shown why the 107 document requests and 45 interrogatories were unduly burdensome, particularly because the discovery involved multiple Plaintiffs and was below the limits allowed by the rules. Defendants also had not tried to negotiate limits on the requests, depositions, or timing of discovery.
The court further found that at least some claims might survive the partial motion to dismiss. Based on the existing record, Plaintiffs may have plausibly alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Finally, the court found potential prejudice from delay because the Fair Labor Standards Act generally has a two-year limitations period, extended to three years for willful violations, and because Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action. The court stated that delaying discovery could reduce the time for potential opt-in plaintiffs to join.
Discovery involving Plaintiff Dinsmore
The court treated Dinsmore differently because of her pending criminal case. It explained that a stay of a civil proceeding during a related criminal proceeding is an extraordinary remedy, and the party seeking it has the burden of showing that it is needed. Courts consider the overlap between the civil and criminal matters, the status of the criminal case, the burdens on the parties, the interests of the court, and the public interest.
The court noted that Dinsmore’s original felony charges had been reduced to misdemeanors in the Town of Pleasant Valley Court. The Dutchess District Attorney’s Office had also submitted a Prosecutors Information alleging 16 additional Class A misdemeanor charges, and the parties represented that those charges were expected to go to trial during the summer, likely in August.
The court found substantial overlap between Dinsmore’s civil claims and the criminal matter. Plaintiffs did not dispute that overlap and stated that the charges were based on what they described as a false affidavit by Defendant Collins in retaliation for Dinsmore’s protected conduct. The court also found that the criminal case had advanced beyond investigation and was neither remote nor hypothetical. It concluded that discovery could force Dinsmore to choose between responding in the civil case and risking consequences in the criminal case, including possible self-incrimination or adverse inferences in the civil case.
The court also found that Plaintiffs had not identified a reason Dinsmore would be prejudiced by the stay, which was limited by the duration of the criminal trial. The court concluded that staying discovery could promote judicial efficiency, narrow issues in the civil case, and serve the public interest in effective criminal-law enforcement.
Ruling
Judge Karas granted Defendants’ motion as to discovery on Plaintiff Dinsmore’s claims during the pendency of her criminal trial. The parties were directed to update the court about the criminal proceedings within 30 days after the trial was resolved or the charges were dismissed.
The court denied Defendants’ motion as to discovery on all other claims and directed the parties to proceed under their agreed discovery schedule. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.