Kennedy v. Aegis Media Americas, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-03624
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kennedy v. Aegis Media, Judge Woods denied all joint requests, including a dismissal-motion schedule and an initial conference adjournment.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, and the scheduling and discovery process in the case were affected. The plaintiffs also received an order to serve any unpresented defendants and retain proof of service.
What happened
Kennedy v. Aegis Media Americas, Inc. involved a joint letter from the parties requesting several things, including a schedule for an anticipated motion to dismiss and postponement of the initial pretrial conference.
The court treated the requested postponement as a request to pause the case and explained that a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery. The parties provided no information supporting such a pause, and the defendants had not filed a required pre-motion conference letter.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied all of the requests. He also directed the plaintiffs to serve the order on any defendants who had not been presented and keep proof of service.
The detailed version
- Kennedy v. Aegis Media Americas, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03624
- Gregory Woods
- June 23, 2020
Background
On June 22, 2020, the parties jointly submitted a letter making a number of requests. They sought approval of a briefing schedule for an anticipated motion to dismiss and asked to adjourn the initial pretrial conference until that motion was decided.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the requested adjournment as a request to stay, or pause, the case while the anticipated motions to dismiss were considered. It explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, except in cases covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. Courts consider whether the defendant has made a strong showing that the claim is unmeritorious, the scope and burden of discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.
The court found that the parties had provided no information about those factors, including no information about the anticipated motions to dismiss. The defendants also had not filed a pre-motion conference letter. The court stated that it would not set a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss before such a letter was filed, as required by the judge’s individual rule.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied all of the requests in the parties’ joint letter. The plaintiffs were directed to serve a copy of the order on any unpresented defendants and retain proof of service.
Effect of the order
This was a case-management and discovery ruling. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or any anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.