Psychic Readers Network, Inc. v. A&E Television Networks, LLC
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-08155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Psychic Readers Network v. A&E Television Networks: Judge Ho granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss.
Psychic Readers Network, Inc. and defendants A&E Television Networks LLC and Hillionaire Productions LLC are affected: discovery is paused while the court considers the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The underlying claims and motion to dismiss remain unresolved.
What happened
In Psychic Readers Network, Inc. v. A&E Television Networks LLC, et al., Psychic Readers Network alleged that the defendants infringed its copyright and trademark rights involving the “Miss Cleo” character and also asserted other claims. The defendants asked the court to pause information-sharing in the case while their motion to dismiss was pending.
The court found that Psychic Readers Network had served 118 document requests seeking substantial information, including revenue and agreements concerning the film’s use of the character. The court also found that the motion to dismiss presented substantial arguments that could potentially dispose of many or all of the claims. Psychic Readers Network did not identify specific harm it would suffer from a pause.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Discovery will remain paused until the court resolves the defendants’ motion to dismiss; the opinion did not decide that motion’s merits.
The detailed version
- Psychic Readers Network, Inc. v. A&E Television Networks, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08155
- Ho
- May 13, 2025
Background
Psychic Readers Network, Inc. (PRN) alleged that A&E Television Networks LLC and Hillionaire Productions LLC infringed its copyright in the “Miss Cleo” character by making and distributing a television film about her life. PRN also asserted claims for trademark infringement, unjust enrichment, defamation, and violation of New York’s Unfair Competition Law.
The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss. They argued, among other things, that PRN lacked copyright registrations for most of the works it claimed were infringed, did not have a registered “Miss Cleo” trademark when it filed the complaint, that the film’s use of the name “Miss Cleo” did not violate unfair-use laws, and that PRN lacked standing to bring a defamation claim on behalf of its corporate officer. Before the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, the defendants moved to stay discovery. PRN opposed the request.
Court’s Analysis
A motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), however, a court may stay discovery when the party seeking the stay shows good cause. Courts consider the scope and burden of the discovery, the strength of the motion to dismiss, and the risk of prejudice to the opposing party.
The court found good cause here. PRN had served 118 document requests, including requests for the defendants’ gross revenues from the film and agreements concerning rights to use the “Miss Cleo” character. The court concluded that responding would require substantial time and effort from the defendants.
The court also determined that the motion to dismiss presented substantial arguments and could potentially dispose of the entire action. The court expressly stated that it was not taking a position on the merits of the motion to dismiss. Finally, the court found that PRN had not identified any specific prejudice from pausing discovery, apart from the ordinary delay associated with waiting for a motion to dismiss to be resolved.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery is stayed pending the court’s resolution of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF Nos. 35 and 41. The opinion did not resolve the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.