Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-04390
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company, Judge Aaron granted a discovery stay and denied Konyukhova’s document-production motion while dismissal motions were pending.
The order affects pro se plaintiff Esmiralda Konyukhova and the defendants participating in the discovery-stay motion, including Walgreen Company, the Walgreens disability plan, and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. Discovery was stayed, Konyukhova’s motion to compel was denied, and the defendants had to produce the specified service agreements by November 28, 2025.
What happened
Esmiralda Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company involves Konyukhova’s claims that Walgreens and related plan entities violated laws protecting people with disabilities and employee-benefit rights. Konyukhova, who was representing herself when this order was issued, sought documents concerning her employee disability-benefit claims.
The court found that her more than 25 requests, covering seven categories, were broad and burdensome. It found no unfairness to Konyukhova because she could seek relevant and appropriately limited discovery later if the case continued, and the defendants had to preserve relevant documents. The court also said the pending motions to dismiss appeared strong and would likely eliminate at least some claims.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the defendants’ motion to stay discovery and denied Konyukhova’s motion to compel document production. The defendants were nevertheless ordered to provide the service agreements they had said they would produce by November 28, 2025.
The detailed version
- Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company · No. 1:24-cv-04390
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 21, 2025
Background
Esmiralda Konyukhova sued Walgreen Company doing business as Walgreens, the Walgreens Company Paid Disability Plan for Salaried Team Members, Pharmacists and Paraprofessionals, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., and additional plan-related defendants named in her Third Amended Complaint. The opinion states that her claims included alleged disability discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation, and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York human-rights laws, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Konyukhova was initially represented by counsel but later proceeded without a lawyer. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to stay discovery until the court resolved their motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Sedgwick joined the motion. Konyukhova opposed a complete discovery stay and later identified more than 25 discovery requests in seven categories, all relating to her ERISA claims. She also filed a motion to compel production of those documents.
Legal standard
Rule 26 allows a court, for good cause, to protect a person from discovery that would cause undue burden or expense. The court explained that discovery is not automatically stayed just because a motion to dismiss has been filed. Instead, the court considers the circumstances of the case, including the breadth of the requested discovery, the burden of responding, possible prejudice to the party seeking discovery, and the apparent strength of the motion to dismiss.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Konyukhova’s requests were broad. Examples included all communications related to drafting, designing, or amending the disability plan and all training or guidance materials provided to employees handling ERISA disability claims. The court concluded that responding would burden the defendants.
The court found that staying discovery would not prejudice Konyukhova because, if the case survived the motions to dismiss, she could seek relevant and proportional discovery later. The defendants also remained obligated to preserve relevant documents.
The court further stated that the pending motions to dismiss appeared strong in at least some respects and likely would result in dismissal of at least some claims. It identified possible time limits affecting certain ERISA claims and noted that other claims might also be time-barred. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding the proper scope of discovery for Konyukhova’s ERISA claims at that time.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to stay discovery, as joined by Sedgwick. It denied Konyukhova’s motion to compel production of documents. The defendants were required to produce, by November 28, 2025, copies of the service agreements they had represented they were willing to produce. The opinion did not decide the pending motions to dismiss or the merits of Konyukhova’s claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.