London v. Sony Music Publishing LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-06647
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sena London v. Sony Music Publishing, Judge Tarnofsky let London oppose Sony’s request to pause discovery while its dismissal motion is pending.
Sena London and Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC, particularly their discovery schedule and the briefing of Sony’s request to pause discovery.
What happened
Sena London v. Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC concerns Sony’s request to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss London’s amended complaint is pending. Sony argued that the motion could end the case and that continuing discovery could be costly.
Sony asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery. The opinion text states that Sony’s motion to dismiss challenges the court’s authority to hear the case based on alleged failure to complete required steps and argues that London’s claims are legally insufficient. The text does not show a ruling on that motion or on the request to stay discovery.
The court allowed London to file a letter opposing the request to stay discovery by November 19, 2025. Judge Tarnofsky therefore set an opportunity to respond; the text does not state that she granted or denied the discovery stay.
The detailed version
- London v. Sony Music Publishing LLC · No. 1:25-cv-06647
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 5, 2025
Procedural posture
Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC asked the court to stay discovery while its motion to dismiss Sena London’s First Amended Complaint was pending. A discovery stay temporarily pauses the exchange of information and documents in a case. The request cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows a court to limit or pause discovery for good cause.
Parties’ positions
Sony said its motion to dismiss, filed on November 3, 2025, sought dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety. According to Sony’s letter, the motion argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because London allegedly failed to satisfy applicable exhaustion requirements and that London failed to state legally cognizable claims. Sony argued that discovery could be extensive and expensive and might become unnecessary if the motion to dismiss ended the litigation.
Court’s action
The court’s instruction states: “Plaintiff may file a letter opposing the letter-motion to stay (ECF 32) by November 19, 2025.” The text does not state that the court granted or denied the request to stay discovery, and it does not rule on Sony’s motion to dismiss. The order instead provides London an opportunity to respond.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because it concerns the management of discovery and the response process for a pending motion, not the merits of London’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.