Bates v. Union Square Hospitality Group, LLC

Background

The defendants—Union Square Hospitality Group, LLC, Dylan Shipsey, Lucy McGinty, Megan Henne, and Kimberly Yu—asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought a stay while the court considered their fully dispositive motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. In the alternative, they requested a stay until Bates filed an amended complaint. The text states that Bates consented to the portion of the request concerning a stay until he filed an amended complaint.

Bates’s complaint alleged disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants argued that the complaint lacked facts showing discrimination or retaliation and that Bates had left one job, had later been rehired into another position, and had not accepted or timely pursued certain later positions. They also argued that they had engaged with Bates about his medical condition and provided accommodations, and that the accommodation requests described in the letter were not legally reasonable.

Arguments About Discovery

The defendants argued that anticipated discovery would be broad and expensive, particularly because it could involve employment practices, policies, complaints, individual personnel files, and electronically stored information. They cited the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the restaurant industry and difficulties locating people who might no longer work for the organization. They also argued that discovery could become unnecessary if the motion to dismiss succeeded.

The defendants contended that a stay would not unfairly prejudice Bates because the case was in its early stages, discovery had not begun, and delay alone would not cause prejudice. The provided text does not include a separate response from Bates opposing the requested stay.

Ruling

The court ordered: “Discovery is stayed pending disposition of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” The court also adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for November 20, 2020, indefinitely and stated that it would enter the parties’ proposed case-management plan. The provided text does not state that the court decided the motion to dismiss or ruled on the merits of Bates’s claims.