Village of Endicott v. International Business Machines Corporation
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-09242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Village of Endicott v. IBM, Judge Roman directed the Village to respond to IBM’s request to file a motion seeking a discovery stay.
The plaintiff, Village of Endicott, must respond to IBM’s letter by December 2, 2025; IBM’s request for permission to file a motion to stay discovery remains unresolved in the text provided.
What happened
Village of Endicott v. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) concerns IBM’s renewed request for permission to file a motion that would pause discovery while IBM’s motion to dismiss is pending. IBM said the Village served broad discovery requests before the parties’ required conference and before the court ruled on IBM’s motion to dismiss.
IBM argued that the discovery was premature and burdensome and that a stay could avoid unnecessary work if the case were dismissed. The parties discussed a possible agreement to pause discovery but did not reach one. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied a discovery stay.
Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the plaintiff to respond to IBM’s letter by December 2, 2025. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Electronic Case Filing No. 37.
The detailed version
- Village of Endicott v. International Business Machines Corporation · No. 7:24-cv-09242
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
IBM sent the court a November 24, 2025 letter renewing its request for permission to file a motion to stay discovery. IBM sought to pause discovery while the court considered IBM’s pending motion to dismiss. IBM said it had previously requested a pre-motion conference concerning the proposed discovery stay and that the plaintiff had opposed that request.
IBM stated that, before a required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), before a ruling on the motion to dismiss, and before the court decided whether IBM could file the stay motion, the plaintiff served voluminous and broad discovery requests. IBM argued that the requests were premature because Rule 26 generally bars discovery before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless an exception, agreement, or court order applies. IBM also argued that the requests were overly broad and burdensome and that a stay was appropriate because the pending motion to dismiss could dispose of the entire case.
Court’s action
The court did not rule on whether discovery should be stayed or whether IBM would ultimately prevail on its motion to dismiss. The court directed the plaintiff to respond to IBM’s November 24 letter by December 2, 2025. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 37. The order therefore addressed the next step concerning IBM’s request for permission to file a discovery-stay motion, rather than deciding the requested stay itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.