Gregory Destine a/k/a/ Mrs. GoGo Destine v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-00082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gregory Destine v. Romeo Joseph, Judge Wang granted the City’s request to stay discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending.
Gregory Destine, the City of New York, and the other defendants in the case; discovery was paused while the City’s motion to dismiss remained pending.
What happened
Gregory Destine sued Romeo Joseph and others, and the City of New York asked the court to pause discovery while the City’s motion to dismiss was pending. Destine agreed to the request.
The City argued that no City agent or employee was involved in the events underlying Destine’s claims. Romeo Joseph, identified as an Amtrak police officer, had been added as a defendant and was still being served.
The court found good cause to pause discovery and granted the City’s request. Ona T. Wang, the United States Magistrate Judge, did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- Gregory Destine a/k/a/ Mrs. GoGo Destine v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00082
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
The City of New York asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the court resolved the City’s motion to dismiss. Gregory Destine consented to the request. The opinion’s caption lists Romeo Joseph, Shield No. 501296, and others as defendants.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stop discovery. A court may stay discovery when the requesting party shows good cause. Courts generally require a strong showing that a motion seeking dismissal of the entire case is likely to succeed.
The City’s motion sought dismissal of the claims against the City on the ground that no City agent or employee was involved in the events underlying Destine’s claims. The opinion states that Romeo Joseph, described as an Amtrak police officer and alleged to have participated in those events, had been added as a defendant and was still being served. Based on this showing, the court found good cause for a discovery stay.
Ruling
The court granted the City’s motion to stay discovery. The order did not decide the City’s motion to dismiss or determine whether Destine’s claims ultimately succeed. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mail a copy of the order to Destine, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.