Palisades Estates EOM, LLC v. County of Rockland, New York

Background

The opinion consists of a letter submitted on behalf of all defendants in response to the plaintiffs’ request for a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). That conference concerns the parties’ discovery plan and scheduling. The defendants asked the court to formally stay, or pause, discovery until the court decided pending motions.

Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants stated that the pending motions raised subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a request for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65, and whether claims against municipalities and their officers outside the Southern District of New York should be severed and transferred under Rules 20 and 21. They argued that these motions could substantially affect the scope of discovery or determine whether discovery was necessary at all.

The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs’ discovery request came more than 18 months after the action began and more than 11 months after the motions had been fully briefed. They asserted that this timing undermined any claim that the plaintiffs would be harmed by additional delay. The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion might already be moot, or might become moot, because New York City had said it would resettle asylum seekers staying in upstate hotels by the end of 2024.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the motion without prejudice, subject to renewal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 407. The opinion does not state whether discovery was otherwise stayed, and it does not explain the court’s reasons for denying the motion or address the merits of the pending jurisdictional, pleading, venue, or preliminary-injunction motions.