Maiorino v. New York City Department of Sanitation

Issue and request

The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while they prepared an anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The order addressed only that request; it did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss.

Legal standard

The court explained that discovery may be stayed only for “good cause.” In evaluating that question, courts consider the scope of the discovery sought, possible prejudice from allowing or pausing discovery, and the strength of the anticipated motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery.

Court’s reasoning

The court stated that, without prejudging the ultimate result, the defendants had not shown at that stage that their anticipated motion would present substantial grounds for dismissal. Discovery had not yet been served, and Vincent Maiorino represented that he would seek only limited materials that had been collected and disclosed in a similar case. The court also noted that Maiorino is a former sanitation worker who seeks, among other relief, reinstatement to his job, and found that he had shown he would be prejudiced by a discovery stay.

Ruling and next steps

The court denied the defendants’ request to stay discovery. It noted that the defendants could seek a protective order if discovery imposed an undue burden or expense. The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for an initial pretrial conference on May 9, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., and to jointly submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order one week before that conference.