Goldstein v. City University of New York

Background

Avraham Goldstein filed a Second Amended Complaint against multiple defendants, including Nadia A. Saleh. Saleh had filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Goldstein had not brought valid claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Civil Rights Law.

While that motion was pending, Saleh moved to stay discovery as to herself. A discovery stay temporarily pauses the exchange of information and documents between the parties. Saleh argued that the dismissal motion had substantial support, that responding to discovery would impose an unreasonable burden, and that Goldstein would experience little prejudice from a stay.

Legal standard

The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stop discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), a court may stay discovery for good cause. Courts assess good cause by considering whether the defendant has made a strong showing that the claims may be unmeritorious, the scope and burden of discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay. The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing good cause.

Court’s analysis

Judge Vargas stated that she was not deciding the merits of the pending motion to dismiss. She nevertheless found that Saleh had raised substantial arguments that Goldstein failed to state his claims, so the first factor favored a stay.

The second factor also favored a stay because Goldstein’s document requests sought extensive records, including documents, emails, text messages, and other electronically stored information concerning various subjects over more than three years. The court reasoned that proceeding with expensive discovery could become unnecessary if the motion to dismiss were granted.

The third factor favored a stay because the case was still in its early stages. Goldstein primarily sought monetary damages, apart from a request to be appointed to the City University of New York’s Advisory Council on Jewish Life. Goldstein identified the possibility that a stay would create a shortened discovery schedule and give Saleh a strategic advantage. The court concluded that any such problem could be addressed by extending the discovery schedule if necessary.

Disposition

The court held that there was good cause to stay discovery until resolution of the motion to dismiss. Judge Vargas granted Saleh’s Motion to Stay Discovery as to Defendant Saleh. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 94. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of Goldstein’s claims.