Bass v. Pershing
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:25-cv-02478
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Robert C. Bass v. Pershing, Judge Caproni stayed discovery, adjourned the pretrial conference indefinitely, and denied motions to strike.
Robert C. Bass, FINRA, and the other defendants are affected: discovery is paused, the initial pretrial conference is postponed indefinitely, and Bass’s motions to strike were denied.
What happened
In Robert C. Bass v. Pershing, FINRA asked the court to pause discovery, postpone the initial pretrial conference, and suspend related deadlines while the court considered defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. FINRA argued that its motion raised substantial arguments, including that it had immunity from Bass’s claims.
The court found good cause to stay discovery because the defendants’ motions raised substantial arguments favoring dismissal and discovery could impose undue expense given the breadth of Bass’s allegations. The court also noted that discovery had been sought before the parties’ required conference.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application, stayed discovery, and adjourned the October 17, 2025 initial pretrial conference indefinitely. She denied Bass’s motions to strike the defendants’ reply papers and directed the clerk to terminate the open motions listed at Dockets 101, 105, 106, and 109.
The detailed version
- Bass v. Pershing · No. 1:25-cv-02478
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 29, 2025
What the Court Considered
FINRA asked the court to stay discovery, adjourn the initial pretrial conference, and suspend other pretrial deadlines until the court ruled on defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. A stay temporarily pauses a court proceeding or litigation activity. FINRA argued that its motion to dismiss presented substantial grounds for dismissal, including absolute arbitral immunity—a doctrine that can protect an arbitration forum and its employees from liability for actions connected with administering arbitrations.
The opinion states that defendants had filed motions to dismiss and that those motions remained pending. It also states that Bass had attempted to begin document discovery before the parties held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The defendants consented to FINRA’s request, while Bass did not consent. The court had previously adjourned the initial pretrial conference so it could first consider the motions to dismiss.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni found good cause to stay discovery because the defendants’ dispositive motions raised substantial arguments favoring dismissal and allowing discovery to proceed would subject defendants to undue expense in light of the breadth of Bass’s allegations. The court therefore granted the application, stayed discovery, and adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for October 17, 2025, indefinitely.
The court also rejected Bass’s accusations that defendants had submitted fabricated materials and his references to technical errors as grounds for striking the defendants’ reply papers. It denied Bass’s motions to strike. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motions at Dockets 101, 105, 106, and 109.
What the Ruling Did Not Decide
The order did not decide the pending motions to dismiss or determine whether FINRA is entitled to arbitral immunity. It addressed discovery, scheduling, and the motions to strike while those dismissal motions remained pending.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.