Pen American Center, Inc. v. Trump
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-09433
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pen American Center v. Trump, Judge Schofield continued the discovery stay while Defendant’s motion for interlocutory appeal was pending.
The parties to the case, especially the Plaintiff, whose discovery remained paused for at least another month.
What happened
In Pen American Center, Inc. v. Trump, the court had previously stayed discovery and directed the parties to discuss resolving the case through summary judgment on agreed facts or settlement.
The Defendant proposed asking for permission to pursue an immediate appeal and to keep discovery paused. The Plaintiff asked to serve limited discovery requests while that motion was pending, and the Defendant opposed the request.
Judge Schofield ruled that there was good reason to continue pausing discovery and found that another month would not unfairly harm the Plaintiff. The parties were ordered to submit a revised case-management and scheduling plan by July 6, 2020.
The detailed version
- Pen American Center, Inc. v. Trump · No. 1:18-cv-09433
- Lorna Schofield
- June 2, 2020
Background
On April 16, 2020, the Court stayed discovery at least until May 19, 2020. It also directed the parties to discuss whether the Plaintiff’s claims could be resolved through cross-motions for summary judgment based on stipulated facts or through settlement.
On May 18, 2020, the Defendant proposed a motion asking the Court to certify an interlocutory appeal. Such a certification seeks permission for an immediate appeal before the case is finished. The Defendant also asked that discovery remain stayed while the Court considered the certification motion and while any related appeal proceeded. The Defendant received permission to file that motion on May 27, 2020.
On May 29, 2020, the Plaintiff asked to serve targeted discovery requests while the Defendant’s motion was pending. The Defendant opposed that request.
Court’s analysis
The Court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d). Rule 26(c) allows a court to stay discovery for good cause, meaning a sufficient case-specific reason. Rule 26(d) allows a court to control the timing and sequence of discovery, particularly when resolving a preliminary issue could decide the entire case. The Court stated that the Defendant, as the party seeking the stay, had the burden of showing good cause.
Ruling
The Court ordered that discovery remain stayed while it resolved the Defendant’s motion. It found that good cause existed and that an additional month-long delay would not unfairly prejudice the Plaintiff. The Court noted that discovery had already been stayed from the beginning of the case, first while a recently decided motion to dismiss was pending and then while the parties discussed stipulated facts.
The parties were ordered to file a revised proposed case-management plan and scheduling order by July 6, 2020, so the order could be entered quickly if the Defendant’s motion was denied. This order addressed the timing of discovery and did not state the ultimate outcome of the Defendant’s motion for interlocutory appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.