Wilson v. Mastercard Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-05930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wilson v. Mastercard, Judge Caproni granted Mastercard’s motion to stay discovery until the court decides its motion to dismiss.
Wilson and the defendants are affected because discovery is paused until the court decides Mastercard’s motion to dismiss; the initial pretrial conference was also canceled.
What happened
In Wilson v. Mastercard, Mastercard asked the court to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss the complaint was pending. Mastercard argued that the motion could dispose of all or part of the case and that Wilson’s 37 broad discovery requests would be burdensome.
Wilson opposed the stay, arguing that delaying discovery could prejudice her and that discovery might benefit the case. Mastercard responded that the delay would be brief, evidence-preservation efforts were underway, and discovery might become unnecessary depending on the motion to dismiss.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the motion to stay discovery. She found good cause because deciding the motion to dismiss could resolve all or part of the case and would clarify what issues remained. The court also canceled the scheduled initial pretrial conference and will reschedule it after deciding the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Mastercard Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05930
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 25, 2022
Background
Mastercard filed a motion to dismiss Wilson’s First Amended Complaint. While that motion was pending, Mastercard sought a stay of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits a court to issue an order protecting a party from undue burden. Mastercard argued that its motion to dismiss could dispose of the entire case or part of it, and that proceeding with discovery before the court ruled would be inefficient and burdensome.
Mastercard also argued that Wilson had served 37 broad document requests. It asserted that discovery could become unnecessary depending on the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. Wilson opposed the stay and argued that delaying discovery could prejudice her, including through faded memories or lost evidence. Mastercard responded that Wilson had previously agreed not to seek discovery before Mastercard responded to the amended complaint and that Mastercard had agreed to preservation efforts.
Court’s Analysis
The court found good cause to stay discovery even though Mastercard’s motion to dismiss was not fully briefed. The court stated that its decision on the motion to dismiss could dispose of the matter entirely or partially and would clarify the issues that would need to be addressed if the case continued. The court also found that beginning discovery after ruling on the motion to dismiss would be more efficient and less burdensome for the defendants.
Ruling and Case Status
Judge Valerie Caproni granted Mastercard’s motion to stay discovery. The court canceled the initial pretrial conference scheduled for January 28, 2022. After resolving the motion to dismiss, the court will reschedule that conference and require the parties to submit new pre-conference materials, including a proposed case-management plan. The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 47. This order did not decide Mastercard’s motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.