Yovanny Dominguez v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-10343
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dominguez v. Lowe’s, Judge Gardephe denied the parties’ request to pause case-management and discovery deadlines while a dismissal motion was pending.
Yovanny Dominguez and Lowe’s Companies, Inc.; the requested pause in the initial case-management conference and discovery deadlines was denied.
What happened
In Yovanny Dominguez v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., the parties jointly asked the court to pause the initial case-management conference and discovery deadlines. They sought the pause while Dominguez planned to amend his complaint and Lowe’s anticipated asking the court to dismiss it.
The parties said a pause would avoid the cost and effort of discovery before the court decided whether the case could proceed, and that no existing deadlines would be affected. The court rejected the request, explaining that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery and that courts do not ordinarily pause discovery merely because such a motion is pending.
Judge Gardephe denied the joint request to stay the initial conference and discovery deadlines. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the filing associated with the request, identified as ECF No. 12.
The detailed version
- Yovanny Dominguez v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10343
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 26, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Yovanny Dominguez and Defendant Lowe's Companies, Inc. jointly requested a stay of any initial case-management conference date and discovery deadlines. The request was made while Dominguez contemplated filing an amended complaint to substitute Lowe's Home Centers, LLC as the defendant, and Lowe's Home Centers anticipated filing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The parties argued that pausing the initial conference and discovery would allow them to avoid the time and expense of discovery until the court decided whether, and to what extent, the case would proceed. They also represented that no deadlines were currently set and that neither side would be prejudiced by the requested stay.
Court's Reasoning
The court stated that a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, except in cases covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. It also cited decisions explaining that courts do not routinely stay discovery simply because a motion to dismiss has been filed, and that the pendency of a dispositive motion is not itself an automatic basis for a stay.
Disposition
The court denied the joint letter-motion to stay the initial case-management conference date and discovery deadlines. It directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 12.
Uncertainty
The supplied case metadata identifies Paul Gardephe as the judge. The scanned order's signature block appears to identify a different judicial officer, but the name is not clearly legible in the provided text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.