Doe 1 v. Alexander
- Jesse Furman
- 2:25-cv-02113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jane Doe 1 v. Tal Alexander, Judge Furman ordered a response deadline but did not rule on requests to stay the case, discovery, or anonymity.
The order set a response deadline for Jane Doe 1. The requested stays and anonymity ruling would affect Jane Doe 1 and defendants Tal Alexander, Alon Alexander, and Oren Alexander, but the provided text does not show that the court granted or denied those requests.
What happened
In Jane Doe 1 v. Tal Alexander, defense counsel asked the court to pause the case because related appeals could resolve the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claim under New York City’s Victims of Gender Motivated Violence Protection Law was time-barred and that the city’s revival law was invalid.
The defendants also asked to pause discovery while the motions to dismiss and related criminal proceedings were pending. They said the civil case overlaps with criminal charges against the defendants and that discovery could burden their criminal defense. The defendants separately asked the court to decide the plaintiff’s request to proceed anonymously. The plaintiff did not oppose the first two requests but opposed the requests concerning the criminal proceedings and anonymity.
Judge Furman’s action in the provided text was limited to ordering the plaintiff to respond by May 28, 2025. The text does not show a ruling granting or denying any request to stay the case, pause discovery, or decide the anonymity motion.
The detailed version
- Doe 1 v. Alexander · No. 2:25-cv-02113
- Jesse Furman
- May 23, 2025
Document and procedural posture
The provided document is a letter submitted on behalf of defendant Tal Alexander in response to the court’s request for a case-management plan. Co-defendants Alon Alexander and Oren Alexander joined some of the requests. The document also includes an order directing the plaintiff to file a response by May 28, 2025.
Requested stays
The defendants first asked the court to stay, or pause, the civil proceedings while the Second Circuit considered related appeals that they said could resolve their motions to dismiss. Those motions challenge the plaintiff’s sole claim under New York City’s Victims of Gender Motivated Violence Protection Law. The defendants argued that the claim was time-barred and that a 2022 amendment reviving such claims was preempted by New York State law.
Alternatively, the defendants asked the court to stay discovery while it considered the motions to dismiss. They argued that discovery could be broad and burdensome and that the motions, if granted, could end the case.
The defendants separately requested a stay of discovery until the end of related criminal proceedings. The letter states that Tal Alexander, Alon Alexander, and Oren Alexander were indicted on charges that overlap with the allegations in the civil complaint, and that trial was scheduled for January 2026. The defendants argued that civil discovery could force them to choose between asserting the constitutional protection against self-incrimination and providing information that could harm their criminal defense.
Anonymity request
Despite requesting a general stay, the defendants asked the court to decide the plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed anonymously. They argued that public promotion of the case and requests for information from third parties gave the plaintiff an unfair litigation advantage. The plaintiff opposed this request.
What the court did
The provided text does not contain a ruling granting or denying any requested stay, ruling on discovery, or deciding the anonymity motion. Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered only that the plaintiff file a response by May 28, 2025. The document is marked “SO ORDERED” and dated May 23, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.