Knight v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-07114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Knight v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Judge Koeltl ordered class discovery paused while Deloitte’s motion to strike class allegations remained pending.
The plaintiff and Deloitte in this case: class-related discovery was paused, while discovery on the plaintiff’s individual claims could continue.
What happened
In Knight v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Deloitte asked the court to pause discovery concerning the proposed class while the court considered Deloitte’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s class allegations.
Deloitte argued that the motion could dispose of the class allegations, that class discovery would be burdensome and expensive, and that the plaintiff did not claim prejudice. The parties agreed that discovery on the plaintiff’s individual claims could continue.
Judge John G. Koeltl ordered class discovery stayed pending a ruling on Deloitte’s motion. The order did not pause discovery on the plaintiff’s individual claims.
The detailed version
- Knight v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited · No. 1:20-cv-07114
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 13, 2020
Background
Deloitte moved to stay, or pause, discovery related to the proposed class while the court considered its motion to strike the plaintiff’s class allegations. The filing states that the parties consented to the requested stay. It also states that the parties agreed to proceed with discovery on the plaintiff’s individual claims.
Arguments
Deloitte argued that a stay was justified because its motion to strike was potentially dispositive of the class allegations and was supported by law. Deloitte also argued that class discovery would be burdensome and expensive because it would involve many Deloitte employees and nationwide practices. According to the filing, the plaintiff did not argue that a stay would prejudice her.
Ruling
The court ordered class discovery stayed pending a ruling on Deloitte’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s class allegations. The order did not stay discovery concerning the plaintiff’s individual claims. The text contains a “SO ORDERED” notation but does not separately use the word “granted” for the motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.