Doe 1 v. Alexander
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-02108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Doe 1 v. Alexander, Judge Abrams set April 30 for a response to a request to pause the civil case and discovery.
Doe 1 and Tal Alexander are the parties directly affected; the order sets the plaintiff’s response deadline on Alexander’s requests to pause the civil case or discovery.
What happened
Doe 1 v. Alexander concerns a civil lawsuit against Tal Alexander alleging a violation of New York City’s Victims of Gender Motivated Violence Protection Law. Alexander asked the court to pause the case, or at least discovery, while related appeals and his criminal case proceed. The plaintiff opposed the requests.
Alexander argued that a pending motion to dismiss could end the lawsuit because the claim was time-barred and the City law’s revival provision was preempted by New York State law. He also argued that the civil case overlaps with criminal charges against him and that discovery could burden his criminal defense and affect his protection against self-incrimination.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide the requests in the text provided. Instead, the court ordered the plaintiff to submit a response no later than April 30, 2025.
The detailed version
- Doe 1 v. Alexander · No. 1:25-cv-02108
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 28, 2025
What the Court Decided
The text provided is a defense letter requesting relief followed by an order directing the plaintiff to respond. It does not state that the court granted or denied either request for a stay. The court ordered: “Plaintiff shall submit a response no later than April 30, 2025.”
Background
The complaint asserts one claim under New York City’s Victims of Gender Motivated Violence Protection Law. Alexander has a pending motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to strike certain allegations. According to Alexander’s letter, the motion argues that the claim is time-barred and that a 2022 amendment to the City law that could revive the claim is preempted by New York State legislation. The letter also says that a motion to proceed anonymously is pending.
Alexander asked the court to stay all proceedings while the Second Circuit considers two related appeals that he said could resolve the preemption issue. Alternatively, he requested a stay of discovery and discovery-related deadlines while the motion to dismiss, the related appeals, and criminal charges against him are resolved. The plaintiff opposed both requests.
Arguments Concerning Discovery
Alexander argued that discovery could be broad and burdensome, including discovery about his relationships with other women and his two siblings. He also stated that he had been indicted in the Southern District of New York on charges that parallel allegations in the civil complaint, that he was incarcerated, and that his criminal trial was scheduled for January 2026.
He argued that the civil and criminal matters substantially overlap. In his view, proceeding with discovery could force him to choose between asserting his protection against self-incrimination, potentially allowing an adverse inference, and providing information that could affect his criminal defense or give the prosecution information about that defense.
Current Status
Judge Ronnie Abrams set April 30, 2025, as the deadline for the plaintiff’s response. Based on the text provided, the court had not yet ruled on the requested stay of proceedings or the alternative request to stay discovery.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.