Rockefeller Photos v. V.T. Meat & Grocery Inc.

Background

Rockefeller Photos, LLC brought this action against V.T. Meat & Grocery Inc., doing business as Food Fair Wholesale Fresh Market, and Starprint Publications, Inc. The opinion describes the case as involving eighteen alleged photographic copyright violations. The defendants had filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and those motions remained pending. Discovery had not begun, although the parties had pursued court-ordered mediation, which was unsuccessful.

Requested relief and the parties’ positions

Starprint asked the court to stay discovery and extend the July 16, 2026 deadline for submitting the proposed Case Management Plan until fourteen days after the court ruled on the pending motions to dismiss. Starprint argued that the motions raised threshold issues, including statutory standing, copyright ownership and chain of title, required joinder of a party, and whether Rockefeller Photos had adequately alleged actionable conduct by Starprint. It also argued that discovery concerning ownership, licensing history, the photographs, Food Fair’s circulars, and Starprint’s alleged conduct would be broad and burdensome. Food Fair consented to the requested relief.

Rockefeller Photos opposed the request. It argued that Starprint had delayed seeking a stay, that the dismissal motion was not strong, and that any claimed discovery burden was speculative because discovery had not yet been exchanged. Rockefeller Photos also argued that Starprint would remain a key witness even if the dismissal motion succeeded. It stated that it had agreed to dismissal of its negligence claim to the extent Food Fair’s motion had merit.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery. It considered three factors: whether the defendant made a strong showing that the plaintiff’s claim was unmeritorious, the breadth and burden of discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.

The court found that Starprint had not made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on its motion to dismiss. It also found that Starprint had not provided concrete reasons showing that discovery would be particularly burdensome. The court described the discovery related to the eighteen alleged photographic copyright violations as appearing narrow. Finally, the court found that Rockefeller Photos identified ongoing prejudice because the start of discovery had already been delayed while the parties pursued mediation.

Ruling and scheduling orders

The court denied Starprint’s application to stay discovery and extend the case-management-plan deadline based on the pending dismissal motions. Separately, because of a scheduling conflict, the court adjourned the July 23, 2026 initial pretrial conference without setting a new date. The deadline for the parties to submit their joint letter and proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order was extended to July 30, 2026. The court directed the parties to submit their joint availability for a conference during the first two weeks of September 2026 if they wanted to reschedule the initial pretrial conference. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 40.