Pacific Services Establishment and Starline Services Establishment v. Djunic
Pacific Services Establishment and Starline Services Establishment v. Djunic et al […]
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-07687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pacific Services Establishment v. Djunic, Judge Rochon denied Natalija Djunic’s motion to stay discovery while her motion to dismiss was pending.
Natalija Djunic, who must continue participating in discovery while her motion to dismiss is pending; the plaintiffs’ discovery efforts may proceed. The opinion also identifies Danko Djunic as pro se and the Skiff Capital defendants as unrepresented, but the stay ruling concerns Natalija Djunic.
What happened
Pacific Services Establishment and Starline Services Establishment asked the court to require Natalija Djunic to provide overdue discovery responses and initial disclosures. Djunic asked the court to pause discovery while it considered her motion to dismiss.
Djunic said that responding to discovery and attending a deposition would be burdensome, that some information had already been obtained from banks, and that she could respond within 14 days if the stay was denied. The plaintiffs argued that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery and that Djunic had not shown a sufficient reason for a stay.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Djunic’s motion to stay discovery. The court said Djunic had not shown why the discovery was overly broad or burdensome and noted that the plaintiffs might still obtain information from her even if she were dismissed from the case.
The detailed version
- Pacific Services Establishment and Starline Services Establishment v. Djunic · No. 1:24-cv-07687
- Rochon
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs served Natalija Djunic with interrogatories and requests for production on August 8, 2025. They said her responses were due September 11, 2025, and that her initial disclosures were due September 12, 2025. According to the plaintiffs, Djunic had provided neither the discovery responses nor the initial disclosures. The parties’ fact and deposition discovery deadline was November 25, 2025, and the plaintiffs had noticed Djunic’s deposition for November 14, 2025.
Djunic had filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. She also sought a stay, meaning a temporary pause, of discovery directed to her while the motion to dismiss was pending. Djunic said she was not refusing discovery and was prepared to provide responses and initial disclosures within 14 days if the court denied the stay. She argued that discovery and a deposition would impose an undue burden, that the plaintiffs had already obtained relevant bank records from third parties, and that she had no alleged role in the business. The plaintiffs opposed the stay.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Djunic’s motion to stay discovery. Under Rule 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause, and the party requesting the stay has the burden of showing good cause. The court explained that a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery. Courts consider the scope of the requested discovery, the burden of responding, possible prejudice to the opposing party, and the strength of the motion to dismiss.
The court found that Djunic had asserted that discovery would be burdensome and unlikely to produce relevant evidence but had not explained why or provided the discovery requests. The court also noted the plaintiffs’ position that they could likely obtain discovery from Djunic through a third-party subpoena because of her connections to the other defendants, even if her motion to dismiss were granted. The court concluded that Djunic had not shown overbreadth, undue burden, or good cause sufficient to justify a stay.
The opinion addressed only the request to pause discovery. It did not state a ruling on Djunic’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.