People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James v. Puff Bar
People of the State of New York by Letitia James v. Puff Bar, et al.; City of New York v. Puff Bar, et al.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-01445
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
People of New York v. Puff Bar; City of New York v. Puff Bar: Judge Garnett granted both motions and lifted the discovery stays.
The People of the State of New York, the City of New York, Puff Bar, the other defendants, and EVO Brands, LLC, must proceed with discovery and participate in the required coordination discussions and joint conference.
What happened
In People of New York v. Puff Bar and City of New York v. Puff Bar, the court considered requests to begin discovery in two related cases. Discovery had previously been paused while the parties addressed anticipated motions and case coordination.
The court said discovery could proceed in the City case because no motion that could end the case was pending, and all claims would continue against all defendants. In the State case, the pending motions could dismiss some claims or all claims against EVO Brands, LLC, but other claims and substantially similar discovery would remain.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted both motions to lift the discovery stays. She ordered the parties to discuss the timing, scope, and coordination of discovery and to appear for a joint discovery conference on September 25, 2025.
The detailed version
- People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James v. Puff Bar · No. 1:25-cv-01445
- Garnett
- Aug. 29, 2025
Background
The court was handling two related cases: the State Action brought by the People of the State of New York by Letitia James and the City Action brought by the City of New York. The court had previously stayed, or paused, discovery in both cases while the parties addressed possible coordination or consolidation, motions to sever, and motions to dismiss.
In the State Action, defendants filed a motion to sever and a partial motion to dismiss five of the nine claims in the State’s complaint. EVO Brands, LLC, also filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims against it. In the City Action, defendants filed a motion to sever but did not file a motion to dismiss; instead, all defendants answered the City’s complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that deciding whether to continue or lift a discovery stay is within its discretion. Courts commonly consider whether the defendant has strongly shown that the plaintiff’s claims lack merit, how broad and burdensome the discovery would be, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.
For the City Action, the court found that a stay was no longer justified because no dispositive motion—a motion that could resolve the case or claims—was pending, and all claims would proceed against all defendants. The pending motion to sever would not affect the applicability of discovery.
For the State Action, the court noted that the defendants’ consolidated motion to dismiss sought dismissal of only five of the nine claims. The court stated that the claims under the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act and the nuisance claims would necessarily survive and would require discovery that substantially overlapped with discovery for the other claims. Although the motion could narrow the claims, the court found no indication that it would significantly narrow discovery.
The court also considered EVO’s motion to dismiss all claims against it. Because EVO was also a defendant in the City Action, which involved substantially similar claims and would require substantially similar discovery, the court found that EVO’s burden from responding to parallel discovery in the State Action would be considerably reduced.
Order
The court granted the State plaintiff’s motion and the City’s motion to lift the discovery stays. It directed the parties to meet and confer by September 12, 2025, about the timing and scope of discovery and coordination between the two cases. The court rejected defendants’ proposal to limit discovery to documents already produced in response to the State’s investigative subpoena and other documents requiring minimal review, while noting that other limits, including limits based on particular claims, might be reasonable.
The court ordered counsel for all parties to appear for a joint conference on September 25, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., by Microsoft Teams. Judge Margaret M. Garnett also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the specified docket entries for the discovery motions and related response in the two cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.