Campbell v. De La Torre
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-01468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Campbell v. De La Torre: Judge Liman granted Campbell’s motion to pause discovery while deciding his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The parties to the drawing-ownership dispute, including Vance Campbell as executor and the defendants, are affected because discovery is paused pending further action on the pleadings motion.
What happened
In Campbell v. De La Torre, Vance Campbell, acting as executor of an estate, asked the court to pause discovery while it considered his motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case concerns a dispute between two estates over ownership of a drawing acquired in 1984.
The pending motion raises whether a June 2021 demand to return the drawing, followed by its non-return, started New York’s three-year deadline for lawsuits to recover personal property. The court viewed that motion as strong, while finding that the requested discovery was broad and that the defendants had not shown they would be harmed by a short pause.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to stay discovery. The parties must request a discovery conference within two weeks after any order denying the pleadings motion in whole or in part.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. De La Torre · No. 1:25-cv-01468
- Lewis Liman
- May 15, 2025
Background
Vance Campbell, acting as executor of an estate, moved to stay discovery while the court considered his pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. A judgment-on-the-pleadings motion asks the court to decide a case based on the pleadings, such as the complaint and answer, without proceeding through full discovery.
The case involves a dispute between two estates concerning ownership of a drawing. The opinion states that the drawing was acquired in November 1984 and that the defendant demanded its return in June 2021. The opinion says there is no indication that the defendant took further action to obtain the drawing after that demand.
Analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows it to stay discovery for good cause while deciding a judgment-on-the-pleadings motion. The relevant considerations include the breadth of the requested discovery, resulting prejudice, and the strength of the pending motion.
The court found that Campbell’s motion appeared strong because it presented a legal question concerning whether the June 2021 demand and the failure to return the drawing started New York’s three-year statute of limitations for actions to recover personal property. If that argument is correct, the case might be resolved from the pleadings based on the statute of limitations.
The court also found that the defendant had not shown prejudice from a brief discovery stay and that the requested discovery was broad. The requested subjects included Wallace Campbell’s knowledge of the artwork’s provenance, the De La Torre family’s efforts to reclaim allegedly stolen art, communications with at least two New York auction houses, and questions about Vance Campbell’s authority to refuse the drawing’s return for the estate.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to stay discovery. The parties were directed to request a discovery conference within two weeks of any order denying, in whole or in part, the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. This order decided only the discovery-stay request; it did not decide the underlying ownership dispute or the pending limitations question.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.