Sweigert v. Goodman
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-08653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Sweigert v. Goodman, Magistrate Judge Aaron allowed an anti-SLAPP defense but denied a discovery pause without deciding the underlying claims.
George Sweigert and Jason Goodman; the order allowed Goodman to amend his answer and pursue a later dispositive motion, while discovery continued for both parties.
What happened
In Sweigert v. Goodman, Defendant Jason Goodman asked to amend his answer to add a defense under New York’s expanded law protecting public participation and to pause discovery. Plaintiff George Sweigert filed requests related to discovery, including a request to obtain information needed to oppose Goodman’s planned motion.
The court ruled that Goodman could add the New York anti-SLAPP defense and could later file a motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. But the court found that the special state-court procedures Goodman wanted to use conflicted with federal court rules and did not automatically pause discovery. The court did not decide the underlying issues in Sweigert’s claims.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the request to amend the answer and denied the request to stay discovery. He directed the parties to attend a telephone conference to set a briefing schedule and address discovery disputes and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Sweigert v. Goodman · No. 1:18-cv-08653
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
George Sweigert sued Jason Goodman. Goodman asked to amend his answer to add a defense under New York’s amended anti-SLAPP statute and requested permission to file a special motion to dismiss. He also asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while that motion was considered. Sweigert made several filings, including a motion to compel discovery so that he could oppose Goodman’s motion and a separate request concerning a discovery stay.
The opinion explains that “SLAPP” means a lawsuit brought mainly to burden or discourage a person’s exercise of free speech or petition rights. New York amended its anti-SLAPP law effective November 10, 2020. The parties appeared to agree that Sweigert’s defamation claims fell within the amended law’s definition of an action involving public petition and participation.
Analysis
The court held that the substantive part of New York Civil Rights Law § 76-a applied in this federal diversity case. It was not persuaded, however, that the state law’s special motion-to-dismiss procedures under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3211(g) applied at this stage of the federal case. Those procedures allow courts to consider affidavits at the motion-to-dismiss stage and restrict discovery. The court concluded that these procedural features conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing motions to dismiss and summary judgment.
Because Goodman had already filed an answer, the court stated that his later dispositive motion could be filed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) or as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. After such a motion was filed and fully briefed, the magistrate judge would make a report and recommendation to District Judge Valerie Caproni about the motion’s disposition.
Ruling
The court granted Goodman’s motion to amend his answer to add an anti-SLAPP defense. It also granted Goodman’s motion for leave to file an appropriate dispositive motion under the New York anti-SLAPP statute. The court denied Goodman’s request to stay discovery because he had not shown that a stay was required or warranted. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding the substantive issues raised in Goodman’s memorandum.
The court withdrew the portion of an earlier docket entry addressing discovery deadlines, making Goodman’s objection and certain of Sweigert’s letters moot. It directed the parties to appear for a telephone conference on May 4, 2021, to set a briefing schedule and address remaining discovery disputes and deadlines. The Clerk was also asked to mail the opinion to Goodman, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.