Berkley Insurance Company v. Weddle Law PLLC
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-08108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Berkley Insurance v. Weddle Law, Judge Vargas denied Berkley’s motion to stay discovery while its pleadings motion remains pending.
Berkley Insurance Company’s requested pause in discovery was denied, so discovery may continue while its motion for judgment on the pleadings is pending. Weddle Law PLLC may pursue its discovery requests, although Berkley may object to particular requests or seek a protective order.
What happened
Berkley Insurance Company v. Weddle Law PLLC concerns Berkley’s request to pause discovery while the court considers Berkley’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Berkley argued that Weddle Law’s requests about the claim file and claims-handling process were irrelevant and unnecessary.
Weddle Law opposed the pause, arguing that its requests sought information relevant to interpreting the insurance policy. The court found that Berkley had not shown that Weddle Law’s claims or discovery requests were clearly without merit, had not demonstrated the specific burden or expense of responding, and had not shown that a short delay would justify a stay.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied Berkley’s motion to stay discovery. The court noted that Berkley could object to particular requests or seek a protective order to limit discovery.
The detailed version
- Berkley Insurance Company v. Weddle Law PLLC · No. 1:24-cv-08108
- Vargas
- Aug. 1, 2025
Background
Berkley Insurance Company filed a motion to stay discovery while its motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending. Berkley argued that Weddle Law PLLC’s targeted discovery about Berkley’s claim file and claims-handling process was irrelevant to whether Berkley had a duty to defend under the policy in an adversary proceeding. Berkley also argued that the discovery was unnecessary to Weddle Law’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith because that claim failed as a matter of law.
Weddle Law argued that its document requests sought information that courts have recognized as relevant to the policy-interpretation issues raised by Berkley’s motion. Weddle Law also stated that Berkley had not responded to document requests served two months earlier.
Legal standard
The court explained that discovery should not ordinarily be stayed merely because a motion has been filed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), a court may stay discovery for “good cause.” The party requesting the stay has the burden of showing good cause. The court considered three factors: whether Berkley made a strong showing that Weddle Law’s claims were without merit, the breadth and burden of the discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to Weddle Law if discovery were delayed.
Court’s analysis
The court found no good cause to stay discovery. For purposes of the stay motion, it could not conclude that Weddle Law’s claims and requested discovery were so lacking in merit that discovery should be paused.
The court also found that Berkley had not shown that responding to the discovery would be unusually burdensome. Berkley had not yet responded to the requests, had not provided specific facts showing burden, and had not quantified the volume of documents or the expected expense. The court noted that the requested documents might help determine the meaning of the policy language, including the risks Berkley expected to cover, how it interpreted relevant policy terms, and whether those terms were ambiguous. The court did not rule that every requested document was relevant, however, and said Berkley could object to individual requests or seek a protective order limiting discovery while the pleadings motion remained pending.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that the possible short duration of the pending motion eliminated any prejudice from delay. The court emphasized that staying discovery is the exception rather than the usual rule in the district.
Ruling
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied Berkley’s Motion to Stay Discovery. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion from the docket as ECF No. 22. The order did not decide Berkley’s separate motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.