Orlando v. Nxt-ID, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-01604
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Orlando v. Nxt-ID, Inc., Judge Vyskocil ordered summary-judgment briefing and granted Nxt-ID’s request to pause discovery.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case: Michael Orlando and the other Fit Pay, Inc. stockholders, Nxt-ID, Inc., CrowdOut Capital, LLC, and Garmin International, Inc. Discovery is paused while the pending dispositive motions are addressed.
What happened
In Orlando v. Nxt-ID, Inc., Nxt-ID asked the court to pause discovery while the court considered dispositive motions affecting every claim and counterclaim. The court also set a deadline for Nxt-ID to file its summary-judgment motion.
The plaintiffs opposed pausing discovery, while Garmin and CrowdOut agreed with Nxt-ID’s request. The court found good cause because the pending motions could significantly narrow or eliminate the issues, and because the requested discovery appeared extensive and burdensome. The court found that the risk of unfair prejudice to the plaintiffs did not outweigh those considerations.
Judge Vyskocil granted the request to stay discovery, ordered Nxt-ID to file its summary-judgment motion by October 30, 2020, and set further briefing under the applicable local rule. The order did not decide the merits of the claims or motions.
The detailed version
- Orlando v. Nxt-ID, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01604
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
Nxt-ID asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the parties’ dispositive motions were resolved. A dispositive motion is a motion that could resolve some or all of the claims without a trial. Garmin International, Inc. and CrowdOut Capital, LLC consented to the request. The plaintiffs opposed it.
At an earlier conference, the court had denied Nxt-ID’s request to stay discovery without prejudice because Nxt-ID had not yet filed a dispositive motion and discovery would likely overlap among the parties. The court stated that circumstances had changed because a dispositive motion then existed concerning every claim and counterclaim.
Briefing Schedule
After reviewing the parties’ pre-motion letters concerning Nxt-ID’s contemplated motion for summary judgment, the court found that a pre-motion conference was unnecessary. It ordered Nxt-ID to file its summary-judgment motion by October 30, 2020, with further briefing governed by Local Rule 6.1(b).
Discovery Stay
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. The court considered the defendants’ legal arguments, the scope and burden of the requested discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the plaintiffs.
The court noted, without deciding the merits of any motion, that the defendants had raised several potentially meritorious arguments that could significantly narrow discovery. One example was Garmin’s argument that the plaintiffs’ unjust-enrichment claim was precluded by the Merger Agreement. The court also found that the plaintiffs appeared to seek extensive discovery and that responding to it would impose a substantial burden. Finally, it found that the risk of unfair prejudice to the plaintiffs was not significant enough to outweigh the other factors.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the request to stay discovery. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions listed at docket entries 85 and 93. The order did not resolve the summary-judgment motion or decide the underlying claims and counterclaim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.