London v. Sony Music Publishing

Background

Sony Music Publishing moved to stay, or pause, discovery while the court considered Sony’s letter-motion to dismiss London’s amended complaint. The court reviewed the amended complaint, the parties’ submissions concerning dismissal, and the parties’ submissions concerning the requested discovery stay.

London described the requested discovery as including risk-assessment communications; hiring and rejection records for a Threat Intelligence Analyst position; records concerning removal from and reinstatement to a fellowship meeting; employee communications; DNS and internet-protocol asset-inventory records; internal information-technology audit findings; statements about compliance and neutrality; pay and remote-work records; records concerning London’s employment status and access badge; and other employment, compliance, and internal-control records. Although London characterized the discovery as narrowly tailored, the court found that the described materials were broad in scope.

Court’s Analysis

Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may stay discovery for good cause. The court considered the breadth and burden of the anticipated discovery, the strength of the motion to dismiss, and possible prejudice to London.

The court held that the breadth of the anticipated discovery supported a stay. It also found that Sony’s motion to dismiss was not unfounded in law and presented substantial arguments for dismissing several, if not all, of the amended complaint’s claims. The court expressly stated that this observation did not predict the outcome of the motion to dismiss. Because that motion could resolve some or all of the claims, it could narrow or eliminate the need for discovery.

The court rejected London’s arguments that a stay would cause prejudice by preventing discovery needed to resolve factual disputes, preserve temporary digital data, or amend the complaint. The court explained that Sony’s motion to dismiss accepted the amended complaint’s allegations as true and argued that those alleged facts were legally insufficient, so resolving factual disputes was not necessary to decide the motion. The court also stated that Sony was obligated to preserve relevant documents and found no basis to conclude that Sony would fail to do so. London had provided no support for the claim that delaying discovery would lead to destruction of evidence.

Disposition

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted Sony Music Publishing’s motion to stay discovery. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to terminate ECF 32. The opinion did not rule on the motion to dismiss itself.