Borjas v. New York City Department of Education
- Ona Wang
- 1:23-cv-10829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Borjas v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Wang granted defendants’ request to stay discovery pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss.
The stay pauses Borjas’s discovery efforts and terminates the current discovery deadlines while the defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending. It also temporarily relieves the defendants from responding to discovery while that motion is being considered.
What happened
In Stacy A. Borjas v. New York City Department of Education et al., the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. Borjas opposed the request.
The court found that the motion to dismiss raised substantial arguments about whether Borjas had adequately pleaded claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and hostile-workplace law, and whether some claims were filed too late. The court also found that continuing discovery could impose unnecessary expense on the defendants and that Borjas had not shown she would be unfairly harmed by a pause.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted the defendants’ application, stayed discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, closed the discovery-stay application, and terminated all pending discovery deadlines.
The detailed version
- Borjas v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-10829
- Ona Wang
- Nov. 19, 2025
Issue and procedural posture
The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the court considered their pending motion to dismiss. Borjas opposed the stay. The opinion addressed only the request to pause discovery; it did not decide the motion to dismiss.
Court’s reasoning
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may issue a protective order to prevent undue burden or expense when there is good cause. The court explained that a pending motion to dismiss can support a discovery stay when the motion presents substantial arguments for dismissal. The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing that it is warranted.
The court considered the requested discovery, the burden of responding, possible prejudice to Borjas, and the strength of the pending motion to dismiss. It found that the motion to dismiss was potentially dispositive and made substantial arguments that Borjas had not pleaded all required elements of her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and her various hostile-workplace claims. The defendants also raised a significant question about whether the claims were filed too late.
The court acknowledged Borjas’s argument that the motion to dismiss might not end the entire case, depending on when she received a right-to-sue letter. But it concluded that the motion could eliminate or meaningfully narrow the claims and therefore reduce the scope of discovery. The defendants also showed that continuing discovery could cause unnecessary expense and divert employees’ time, while Borjas did not demonstrate specific prejudice from a stay. The court noted that Borjas had said she intended to oppose the motion to dismiss rather than amend her complaint again.
Disposition
Judge Ona T. Wang granted the defendants’ application and stayed discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF 113 and terminate all pending discovery deadlines. The opinion did not resolve the defendants’ motion to dismiss or determine the merits of Borjas’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.