Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

Background

Lauren Moore filed an employment discrimination lawsuit after her employment at Johnson & Johnson was terminated, allegedly for reasons related to her race. Her claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Johnson & Johnson, Vanessa Broadhurst, and Howard Reid filed a motion to dismiss. They argued, among other things, that the Southern District of New York was the wrong venue for Moore’s Title VII claims, that Moore did not adequately state claims under the New York laws, and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).

Before the motion to dismiss was fully resolved, Defendants filed two motions asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery. While those motions were pending, the parties continued exchanging discovery. Moore produced 550 pages, and Defendants produced 4,838 pages. The parties also requested more time to complete discovery and to address deposition disputes.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), however, the court may stay discovery when the party requesting the stay shows good cause. The court considered the scope and burden of discovery, the apparent strength of the motion to dismiss, and the possible prejudice to the opposing party.

The court found that discovery had already required both sides to spend substantial time and effort, with a particularly significant production burden on Defendants. It also found that Defendants’ motion to dismiss raised several potentially valid defenses and might dispose of the entire action.

Moore argued that a stay could prejudice her because witnesses might relocate, memories might fade, and she would be unable to obtain relief for an indefinite period. The court found that concern somewhat persuasive because her allegations might depend on witness testimony. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the burden of continuing discovery and the apparent strength of Defendants’ motion to dismiss outweighed the potential prejudice from a delay.

Ruling

Judge Dale E. Ho granted Defendants’ Motions to Stay Discovery. Discovery in the case is stayed pending the court’s resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 36 and 56. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of Moore’s discrimination claims.