Dimps-Hall v. Employee Benefit Plan Administration Committee HSBC - North…
Dimps-Hall v. Employee Benefit Plan Administration Committee HSBC - North America
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-00421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dimps-Hall v. Employee Benefit Plan Administration Committee HSBC - North America, Judge Liman granted a discovery stay and set briefing deadlines.
Shirley A. Dimps-Hall and Employee Benefit Plan Administration Committee HSBC - North America; the order primarily governs the parties’ briefing, administrative-record production, and discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending.
What happened
In Dimps-Hall v. Employee Benefit Plan Administration Committee HSBC - North America, the court addressed scheduling matters while the defendant’s motion to dismiss remains pending.
The court gave the plaintiff until May 23, 2025, to supplement her response and gave the defendant until June 6, 2025, to reply. The defendant also had deadlines to address a possible Local Rule 12.1 statement and provide the plaintiff with the full administrative record.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the defendant’s motion to stay discovery, stating that the motion to dismiss appeared strong and that the administrative record was likely the relevant evidence. The plaintiff may ask for discovery again in her opposition to the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Dimps-Hall v. Employee Benefit Plan Administration Committee HSBC - North… · No. 1:25-cv-00421
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 24, 2025
Background
This order memorialized oral rulings from an initial pretrial conference. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was pending, and the defendant had moved to stay discovery at Dkt. No. 22.
Deadlines and production
The court allowed Plaintiff Shirley A. Dimps-Hall until May 23, 2025, to supplement her response to the motion to dismiss and required that response to be filed on the docket. The defendant had until June 6, 2025, to reply.
The defendant’s deadline to file a Local Rule 12.1 statement was May 1, 2025, although the court stated that it was expressing no view on whether such a statement was required. By May 9, 2025, the defendant had to provide Dimps-Hall with a copy of the full administrative record and file proof of service on the docket.
Discovery stay
The court granted the defendant’s motion to stay discovery. It applied the good-cause standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), considering the breadth of the requested discovery, possible prejudice, and the strength of the motion to dismiss. The court stated that the motion to dismiss appeared strong, that the defendant had substantially shown that the administrative record was the only material likely relevant to resolving the complaint, and that the burden of discovery outweighed any prejudice to Dimps-Hall. The court allowed her to renew her discovery request in her opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Other directives and disposition
The court referred Plaintiff to the Pro Se Law Clinic for possible assistance and explained that the clinic is operated by the City Bar Justice Center rather than the court. The court also stated that a transcript of the April 24, 2025 hearing would be available on the docket and directed the Clerk of Court to close Dkt. No. 22. The order did not decide the merits of the motion to dismiss or the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.