XIFIN, INC. v. The Mount Sinai Hospital
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-02130
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
XIFIN v. The Mount Sinai Hospital: Judge Ramos denied Mount Sinai’s request to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending.
XIFIN, Inc. and The Mount Sinai Hospital were affected by the denial of the requested discovery stay; the court also directed both parties to submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order.
What happened
In XIFIN, Inc. v. The Mount Sinai Hospital, the hospital asked the court to pause discovery until the court decided its motion to dismiss XIFIN’s complaint.
The hospital argued that the motion had substantial merit and that the requested discovery would be broad and burdensome, including records involving a settled dispute with Blue Cross and Blue Shield. It also argued that XIFIN would face little harm from a short delay.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the request to pause discovery and directed the parties to submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order by October 14, 2020.
The detailed version
- XIFIN, INC. v. The Mount Sinai Hospital · No. 1:20-cv-02130
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
The Mount Sinai Hospital asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the court decided its pending motion to dismiss the complaint. The request was made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(c). The hospital’s letter stated that the motion to dismiss had been fully briefed.
The hospital argued that the motion to dismiss had substantial merit because XIFIN’s claims were based on provisions of a 2009 Laboratory Billing Agreement that, according to the hospital, had been eliminated by later amendments. The hospital also argued that XIFIN sought extensive records concerning payments under the agreement and a dispute that the hospital had settled with Blue Cross and Blue Shield. It said that this discovery would burden the hospital and a nonparty and that XIFIN would suffer little prejudice from a short stay.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the hospital’s request for a stay of discovery. The court directed the parties to submit a joint civil case discovery plan and scheduling order by October 14, 2020. The provided opinion text does not give additional reasoning for the denial beyond the order itself.
Disposition
The request to stay discovery was denied. The motion to dismiss was not decided in the provided text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.