Khan v. City of New York
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-00104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Khan v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied without prejudice defendants’ request to pause municipal-liability discovery.
The ruling directly affected the defendants’ request to pause discovery and allowed discovery in Janbaz Khan’s case to continue.
What happened
In Khan v. City of New York, the defendants asked the court to pause discovery about the City’s policies and practices while they prepared a motion for summary judgment. Janbaz Khan opposed the request.
The court found that no summary-judgment motion was pending, the defendants had not explained the arguments they planned to make, and pausing discovery could prejudice Khan. Discovery was already underway, relevant documents had been collected, and the court had already extended the discovery deadline.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied the defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Khan v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-00104
- John Koeltl
- June 9, 2020
Background
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to stay, or pause, discovery concerning municipal liability while they prepared a motion for summary judgment. Khan opposed the motion. The opinion refers to this discovery as “Monell discovery.” The defendants had not yet filed their anticipated summary-judgment motion.
Court’s analysis
Rule 26(c) allows a court to stay discovery for good cause. The court considered factors including whether a potentially case-dispositive motion was pending, possible prejudice to the opposing party, the scope of discovery, and the burden on the responding parties.
The court concluded that these factors did not support a stay. No dispositive motion was pending because the defendants had not filed their anticipated summary-judgment motion, and it was unclear whether or when they would file it. The defendants also had not described the arguments they planned to present, so the court could not assess whether the motion might have merit.
The court found that Khan could be prejudiced by a stay because he had already spent time and resources on the discovery, including taking the deposition of policy witness Inspector Thomas Ponella. The defendants did not dispute the breadth of the requested discovery, discovery was already underway, and the defendants reported that relevant documents had been collected. The court also noted that it had already extended the discovery deadline. The possible cost and time involved in reviewing and producing some of the collected documents did not justify a stay.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied the defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery without prejudice. The court also requested that the Clerk of Court terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 56.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.