Peter C. Hayward, et al. v. mParticle, Inc., et al.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-08173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Peter C. Hayward v. mParticle, Judge Engelmayer ordered plaintiffs to respond by July 21 to defendants’ request to pause discovery.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this putative class action, particularly the timing and scope of discovery.
What happened
Peter C. Hayward v. mParticle concerns defendants’ request to pause discovery while the court considers their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and challenge the nationwide class allegations.
Defendants argued that discovery would be broad, costly, and unnecessary if their pending motion narrowed or ended the case. The opinion states that plaintiffs’ counsel intends to respond, but it does not describe plaintiffs’ arguments.
Judge Engelmayer did not decide whether to pause discovery. He ordered plaintiffs’ response by July 21, 2026.
The detailed version
- Peter C. Hayward, et al. v. mParticle, Inc., et al. · No. 1:25-cv-08173
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 17, 2026
Background
This putative class action was filed in the Northern District of California and later transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court authorized plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, which they filed on October 29, 2025. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint and to strike the nationwide class allegations. The motion was fully briefed by February 4, 2026.
On June 16, 2026, plaintiffs served requests for production of documents. Defendants then requested a temporary stay of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), or alternatively a pre-motion conference about that request.
Defendants’ Request
Defendants argued that a stay would cause little prejudice because the motion to dismiss had been fully briefed and was awaiting decision. They also argued that the requested discovery was broad and costly, involving information about websites, mobile applications, third-party services, multiple custodians, and electronically stored information.
Defendants further argued that their motion presented substantial grounds for dismissal. They asserted that plaintiffs had not alleged an injury sufficient for constitutional standing, had failed to state their privacy, California privacy-law, computer-access, and equitable-relief claims, and that striking the nationwide class allegations would substantially reduce discovery. These were defendants’ arguments; the court did not decide them in this order.
Ruling
The court did not rule on the request to stay discovery, the motion to dismiss, or the request to strike the nationwide class allegations. The order states that plaintiffs’ counsel notified the court that plaintiffs intended to respond and requires plaintiffs’ response by July 21, 2026.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.