Han v. Kunis Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-06265
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Han v. Kuni’s Corporation, Judge Abrams stayed discovery against Pepper Food Service pending its dismissal motion but allowed discovery against Kuni’s Corporation.
Pepper Food Service Co. Ltd. will not participate in discovery while its motion to dismiss is pending. Discovery against Kuni’s Corporation will continue, and the plaintiff’s case will proceed under the court’s scheduling process.
What happened
In Han v. Kuni’s Corporation, Pepper Food Service Co. Ltd. asked the court to pause discovery against it while the court considered its motion to dismiss. Pepper Food Service argued that the claims against it might fail, including because it was not the plaintiff’s employer and the plaintiff had not completed required administrative steps for a Title VII claim.
The court also found that discovery against Pepper Food Service would be costly and difficult. The company is located in Tokyo, depositions could require U.S. consular facilities, fees, special visas, interpreters, and translators, and remote depositions were not allowed. The plaintiff did not show that the possible prejudice from a delay outweighed those burdens.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that discovery against Pepper Food Service be stayed until the court rules on its motion to dismiss. Discovery against Kuni’s Corporation will continue.
The detailed version
- Han v. Kunis Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-06265
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 25, 2020
Background
Pepper Food Service Co. Ltd. ("PFS") asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery against it while the court considered PFS’s motion to dismiss. The opinion does not decide that motion to dismiss.
Analysis
Courts evaluating a request to stay discovery consider whether the defendant has made a strong showing that the plaintiff’s claim 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 must show good cause.
The court found that PFS had raised substantial arguments supporting dismissal of the claims against it. Those arguments included that PFS was not the plaintiff’s “employer” under the statutes cited in the complaint and that the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies required for a Title VII claim.
The court also found that discovery from PFS would be costly and burdensome. PFS is a Japanese corporation located in Tokyo, Japan. Depositions might have to occur at U.S. consular premises in Japan, where there could be a waiting list, and would involve fees and special deposition visas for counsel. Relevant individuals did not speak English, so interpreters and translators would be needed, and the parties could not take the depositions remotely. The plaintiff did not establish that the risk of prejudice from a stay outweighed these burdens.
Order
The court held that a stay was warranted as to PFS and ordered that discovery against PFS be stayed pending the court’s ruling on PFS’s motion to dismiss. Discovery against Kuni’s Corporation will proceed. The court also stated that it would enter the parties’ proposed case-management and scheduling order and hold a post-discovery conference on January 8, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.