Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2025

Auth Token LLC v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc.

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:25-cv-03866
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Auth Token LLC v. Citizens Financial Group, Judge Ho granted Citizens’s unopposed motion to stay discovery while its motion to dismiss remained pending.

Who this affects

Auth Token LLC and Citizens Financial Group, Inc.; discovery in their case is paused pending resolution of Citizens’s motion to dismiss.

What happened

Auth Token LLC sued Citizens Financial Group, Inc. Citizens asked the court to pause discovery until the court decided Citizens’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The motion to stay discovery was unopposed.

The court found good cause for the pause. It said the motion to dismiss could resolve the case and raised substantial arguments, discovery was still in its early stages, Auth Token had missed previously agreed discovery deadlines, and the discovery was likely to be extensive.

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the motion and ordered discovery stayed until the court resolves Citizens’s pending motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Auth Token LLC v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-03866
Judge
Ho
Date
Oct. 27, 2025

Background

Auth Token LLC brought this action against Citizens Financial Group, Inc. Citizens had a pending motion to dismiss Auth Token’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Citizens separately filed an unopposed motion to stay discovery—that is, to pause the exchange of information and evidence between the parties—until the court resolved the motion to dismiss.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Citizens had established good cause under a three-factor test for staying discovery. First, the motion to dismiss was potentially dispositive, meaning it could resolve the case, and the court found that Citizens appeared to raise substantial arguments that were not legally unfounded. Second, the court found that Auth Token would not be unfairly prejudiced because discovery was in its earliest stages and Auth Token had not met previously agreed discovery deadlines. Third, the court found that discovery was likely to be extensive, which supported waiting until the motion to dismiss was decided.

Ruling

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the unopposed motion to stay discovery. Discovery was ordered stayed pending the court’s resolution of Citizens’s pending motion to dismiss. The order did not rule on whether the complaint stated a claim, and it requested that the clerk terminate ECF No. 30.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.