Yang v. The Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-03179
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Yang v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Judge Oetken denied defendants’ request to pause discovery while their dismissal motion was pending.
The defendants must proceed with discovery rather than pause it while their motion to dismiss is pending; the parties must also submit a status letter or proposed case-management plan.
What happened
In Yang v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, John “Jack” Yang brought a case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The defendants moved to dismiss his amended complaint and asked the court to pause discovery until that motion was resolved.
The defendants argued that discovery should routinely be paused while a dismissal motion is pending. Yang argued that the discovery would be limited and that delaying it could cause unfair prejudice because witnesses’ memories might fade.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the defendants’ request for a discovery stay. He ruled that the defendants had not shown good cause, had not addressed the relevant factors, and could not rely solely on the existence of their dismissal motion. The parties were instructed to submit a status letter or a proposed case-management plan.
The detailed version
- Yang v. The Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-03179
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
John “Jack” Yang filed this action under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The defendants moved to dismiss Yang’s amended complaint and separately requested a stay of discovery—that is, an order temporarily pausing the exchange of information and evidence while the dismissal motion was pending. The parties had pursued mediation, but mediation was unsuccessful.
Legal standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a district court to stay discovery when the requesting party shows good cause. Courts generally consider the scope of the requested discovery, the burden of responding, the prejudice that a stay could cause the opposing party, and the strength of the motion supporting the request. The filing of a potentially case-ending motion does not automatically justify a stay.
Arguments and analysis
The defendants did not address the relevant factors or provide a substantive justification for their request. They relied on the argument that courts routinely stay discovery while deciding motions to dismiss.
The court agreed with Yang that discovery appeared likely to focus narrowly on the defendants’ treatment of a single employee. The defendants did not show that the case would be unusually complex or document-intensive. The court also agreed that a delay could prejudice Yang because testimony would be important and witnesses’ memories could fade. Although the defendants had made numerous arguments supporting dismissal, those arguments did not overcome their failure to address the other factors or meet their burden to show good cause.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the defendants’ request for a stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The order resolved Docket Number 33 and instructed the parties to submit either a joint status letter agreeing to the schedule in their initial proposed case-management plan or a new proposed case-management plan.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.