Belsito Communications Inc. v. TorkLaw
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-05094
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Belsito Communications v. TorkLaw, Judge Halpern denied without prejudice the defendants’ request to stay discovery, allowing them to raise it at a scheduled conference.
The defendants’ requested pause in discovery was denied without prejudice to renew, so the parties remained expected to follow the existing case management plan and scheduling order unless the issue was later raised and resolved.
What happened
Belsito Communications Inc. v. TorkLaw involved the defendants’ request to pause discovery while they pursued a proposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The defendants argued that the proposed motion could end or narrow the case and that discovery would be burdensome.
The application asked the court to stay the parties’ discovery obligations while the proposed dismissal motion was considered. The opinion text does not show that the proposed motion to dismiss had been briefed or decided.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the application without prejudice to renew. He stated that the defendants could raise the issue at the pre-motion conference scheduled for February 18, 2021, and directed the parties meanwhile to comply with the case management plan and scheduling order.
The detailed version
- Belsito Communications Inc. v. TorkLaw · No. 7:20-cv-05094
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
The defendants submitted a pre-motion letter seeking permission to ask the court to stay discovery pending a proposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. They said the proposed dismissal motion would challenge the court’s authority over the defendants and whether the amended complaint stated a valid claim. According to the defendants, the motion could resolve the case or substantially narrow the issues for discovery and trial.
The case had a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order requiring the parties to serve initial discovery requests by November 23, 2020, and complete discovery by February 19, 2021. The defendants said they served discovery requests on November 19, 2020, but that the plaintiff had not served its own requests or responded to theirs. The defendants also said they sent a meet-and-confer letter on December 28, 2020, and that plaintiff’s counsel had indicated personal matters had interfered with counsel’s ability to respond to filings.
The defendants argued that a stay would conserve resources, avoid potentially unnecessary and burdensome discovery, and prevent discovery from effectively subjecting them to the court’s authority before their proposed challenge to personal jurisdiction was decided. They also stated that they had placed a litigation hold to preserve potentially relevant documents.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the application for a stay of discovery without prejudice to renew. The order allowed the defendants to raise the issue during the pre-motion conference scheduled for February 18, 2021. In the meantime, the parties were expected to comply with the Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion sequence at Doc. 35.
The text provided is an order resolving the discovery-stay application; it does not decide the proposed motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.