Burns v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01999
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Burns v. City of New York: Judge Tarnofsky granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending.
The stay temporarily pauses discovery for Janet Burns and the other plaintiffs and the City of New York and the other defendants while the motion to dismiss is pending. The court stated that the delay will not be held against plaintiffs when discovery resumes.
What happened
In Janet Burns, et al. v. City of New York, et al., the defendants asked the court to pause information-sharing and evidence gathering while their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is decided.
The court found good cause for the pause because the parties had not exchanged discovery requests, the materials plaintiffs described could require a burdensome search, and the motion to dismiss presented substantial legal arguments that might eliminate or narrow the need for discovery. The court did not predict how the motion to dismiss would be decided.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. The court also ruled that any delay caused by the stay would not count against plaintiffs when discovery resumes and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Burns v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-01999
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
Defendants filed a letter-motion asking the court to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery while the court considered their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Discovery is the process through which parties exchange information and evidence before trial. Plaintiffs opposed the requested stay.
Court’s analysis
Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may stay discovery when the moving party shows good cause. Courts considering a stay pending a motion to dismiss examine the expected scope of discovery, the burden of responding, the strength of the dismissal motion, and possible prejudice to the opposing party.
The court found that these factors supported a stay. The parties had not yet exchanged discovery requests, so the scope of discovery was not clear. Although plaintiffs described the expected discovery as limited cleanup discovery, their description indicated that defendants might have to conduct a burdensome search for materials plaintiffs said had not been produced, along with a small number of fact and organizational depositions.
The court also concluded that defendants’ motion to dismiss was not unfounded in law. It said the motion presented substantial arguments supported by decisions from courts in the same federal circuit. The court expressly stated that this observation did not predict the outcome of the motion to dismiss. Because that motion could dispose of some or all of plaintiffs’ claims, it could reduce or eliminate the need for discovery.
The court addressed plaintiffs’ argument that a stay could cause prejudice because defendants might later argue that the delay made discovery too burdensome. The court eliminated that concern by providing that the delay caused by the stay would not be held against plaintiffs in connection with discovery requests made after the stay is lifted.
Ruling
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to terminate ECF 35. The opinion does not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.