Sanchez v. W.P. Produce Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-02591
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sanchez v. W.P. Produce Corporation, Judge Caproni set a deadline for responding to a request to pause discovery but did not rule on that request.
The plaintiff and W.P. Produce Corporation, because the requested order concerns whether and when the plaintiff may pursue discovery against the defendant.
What happened
In Sanchez v. W.P. Produce Corporation, W.P. Produce Corporation asked the court to pause discovery while it prepared a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s expected amended complaint. The dispute concerns alleged website-accessibility barriers under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The defendant argued that discovery should wait because it planned to challenge the plaintiff’s standing, claim that the dispute was no longer active, and argue that a website is not itself a legally covered public accommodation. It also argued that immediate discovery would impose significant costs. The opinion does not state the plaintiff’s position on the request.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the plaintiff’s response to the request was due by September 3, 2021. The court did not grant or deny the requested pause in discovery in this order.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. W.P. Produce Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-02591
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 26, 2021
Background
The plaintiff filed the original complaint on March 25, 2021. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on August 20, 2021. The plaintiff then informed the court that he intended to file an amended complaint within 21 days. The next day, the plaintiff served interrogatories, document requests, and a notice for a deposition of the defendant’s designated corporate representative.
Defendant’s request
The defendant submitted a letter motion seeking a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order can limit or delay discovery. The defendant asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the defendant could file and obtain a ruling on a motion to dismiss the forthcoming amended complaint. Alternatively, it asked for a pause at least until it could review and respond to the amended allegations.
The defendant argued that it had substantial grounds to seek dismissal, including that the plaintiff had not alleged a concrete and particularized injury supporting standing and that the claims were moot because the defendant’s website included an auxiliary aid or service addressing the alleged barriers. The defendant also stated that it intended to argue that a website is not a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It argued that delaying discovery would not prejudice the plaintiff because the statute provides for injunctive relief, while proceeding with discovery would impose significant costs on the defendant.
Court’s action
The order did not decide whether discovery should be stayed and did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss. Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the plaintiff’s response to the defendant’s request was due no later than Friday, September 3, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.