Wilson v. Mastercard Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-05930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wilson v. Mastercard Inc., Judge Caproni set briefing on Mastercard’s discovery-stay request and adjourned the initial conference without expressly ruling on the request.
Wilson, Mastercard Inc., and Mastercard International Inc.; the order affected discovery-related briefing and the initial pretrial conference schedule, but the supplied text does not state that discovery was stayed.
What happened
In Wilson v. Mastercard Inc., the plaintiff had filed an amended complaint asserting claims for unjust enrichment and violations of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Mastercard Inc. and Mastercard International Inc. asked the court to pause discovery while it considered Mastercard’s motion to dismiss and to postpone the initial pretrial conference. The plaintiff did not agree. Mastercard argued that its dismissal motion had substantial grounds, that the plaintiff’s broad discovery requests would be burdensome, and that a short delay would not unfairly harm the plaintiff.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the plaintiff’s response and Mastercard’s reply on the stay request, and moved the initial pretrial conference from January 21 to January 28, 2022. The supplied order does not expressly state whether the discovery stay was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Mastercard Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05930
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting two individual causes of action: unjust enrichment and a claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Mastercard Inc. and Mastercard International Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Mastercard then renewed its request to stay discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A discovery stay temporarily pauses the exchange of information and documents in a case. Mastercard also asked the court to adjourn the initial pretrial conference until the court decided the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff did not consent to the requested stay.
Mastercard’s Arguments
Mastercard argued that a stay was justified because its motion to dismiss could dispose of the entire case. It contended that the unjust enrichment claim was inadequately pleaded because it relied on express contracts and did not allege unjust conduct. Mastercard also argued that the North Carolina trade-practices claim failed to allege reliance and did not describe unfair or deceptive conduct with enough detail or plausibility.
Mastercard further argued that the plaintiff’s first discovery requests contained 37 broad categories seeking extensive paper and electronic records, including information about foreign-exchange transactions through the Mastercard network over a five-year period. Mastercard said responding would require costly collection and review and could involve confidential and commercially sensitive materials. It also argued that the plaintiff would suffer little or no prejudice from a short delay because the case was in its early stages. Mastercard stated that it would preserve potentially relevant documents, work with the plaintiff on an electronic-discovery protocol and protective order, and provide initial disclosures.
Prior Procedural History
The opinion states that Mastercard previously sought a discovery stay while challenging the original complaint. On December 7, 2021, the court denied that request without prejudice after the plaintiff filed the amended complaint. Mastercard then renewed the request after filing its motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
What the Court Ordered
The court ordered the plaintiff’s response to the stay request by January 21, 2022, at noon, and Mastercard’s reply by January 24, 2022, at 8:00 p.m. Judge Valerie Caproni also adjourned the initial pretrial conference from January 21 to January 28, 2022, at 11:00 a.m.
The supplied text does not expressly say that the court granted or denied the renewed motion to stay discovery. It records briefing deadlines and the adjournment of the conference, but not a final ruling on the stay request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.