McCaffrey v. New York City Police Department
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-06528
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
McCaffrey v. New York City Police Department: Judge Rochon granted a stay of discovery while the defendant’s motion to dismiss is pending.
Discovery in Stephanie McCaffrey’s case against the New York City Police Department is paused while the court considers the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Stephanie McCaffrey v. New York City Police Department, the defendant asked the court to pause the exchange of information and documents called discovery. The request was made while the defendant’s motion to dismiss was pending.
The defendant argued that pausing discovery would conserve court and party resources because the motion to dismiss could end the case or narrow the issues. The request was made with the consent of McCaffrey’s lawyer.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request. The court concluded that the circumstances supported pausing discovery until it decides the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- McCaffrey v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:25-cv-06528
- Rochon
- Nov. 12, 2025
Background
The defendant asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending. The defendant stated that the motion to dismiss could dispose of the case or significantly narrow the issues. The request was made with the consent of McCaffrey’s counsel.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a discovery stay may be granted for good cause, but filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically justify a stay. Courts consider the likely scope of discovery, possible prejudice, and the strength of the motion to dismiss. The court also considered the parties’ consent, the likely breadth of discovery, and the possibility that deciding the motion would narrow the claims.
Ruling
The court concluded that a stay was warranted and granted the request to stay discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. The opinion does not decide the motion to dismiss itself.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.