Tsinberg v. City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-00749
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tsinberg v. City of New York, Judge Cave partly granted and partly denied the City’s motion to stay discovery.
The order affected pro se plaintiff Leon G. Tsinberg and the City of New York by pausing most discovery while allowing five limited categories to proceed.
What happened
In Tsinberg v. City of New York, the City asked the court to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss the amended complaint was pending. Plaintiff Leon Tsinberg, who was representing himself, opposed the pause and requested broader discovery.
The court agreed that discovery should generally be paused because granting the motion to dismiss could end the case. But the parties agreed to exchange limited information while that motion remained pending.
Judge Sarah L. Cave partly granted and partly denied the motion to stay. Discovery was stayed except for five categories involving the seizure, inventory, location, condition, and payment requirements for Tsinberg’s vehicle, along with party interrogatory responses; broader discovery was denied.
The detailed version
- Tsinberg v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00749
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
Leon G. Tsinberg, representing himself, sued the City of New York. The City had filed a motion to dismiss Tsinberg’s amended complaint. While that motion was pending, Tsinberg sought discovery in 41 categories. The City responded by moving to stay discovery until the court ruled on the motion to dismiss.
The parties later conferred and identified limited categories of information they agreed to exchange while the motion to dismiss was pending.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a district court, for good cause, to pause discovery. The court found good cause here because granting the City’s motion to dismiss could dispose of the entire case.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion to stay discovery. Discovery was stayed while the motion to dismiss was pending, except for these five categories:
- City documents concerning the seizure of Tsinberg’s vehicle, including parking tickets and challenges to those tickets;
- Responses by the parties, but not nonparties, to interrogatories complying with Local Civil Rule 33.3;
- An inventory of the vehicle, if one existed;
- The vehicle’s location and general condition; and
- The “official bill” describing the payment required to recover the vehicle when it was seized.
The court denied Tsinberg’s request for discovery beyond those five categories. The order did not decide the City’s pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.