Gem City Management Inc. v. Rinde
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-07676
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gem City Management Inc. v. Rinde, Judge Abrams adjourned the initial conference and stayed discovery while pending dismissal and arbitration motions await decision.
The parties to Gem City Management Inc. v. Rinde: discovery is stayed, and the February 11, 2022 initial pretrial conference is adjourned while the defendants’ pending motions are unresolved.
What happened
Gem City Management Inc. v. Rinde involves a disagreement about the proposed schedule for the case. The parties disagreed about whether discovery deadlines should depend on the Court’s decisions on the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration.
The defendants also asked to postpone the initial conference because those motions were pending. The Court found that there was good reason to postpone the conference and pause discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows courts to issue protective orders concerning discovery.
Judge Ronnie Abrams adjourned the February 11, 2022 initial pretrial conference without setting a new date and stayed discovery. The Court said it would reschedule the conference and require a revised schedule if the case continued after it decided the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Gem City Management Inc. v. Rinde · No. 1:21-cv-07676
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 8, 2022
Background
The Court received the parties’ joint letter and proposed case-management plan dated February 4, 2022. The parties disagreed about whether the discovery deadlines should be tied to the Court’s decisions on the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The defendants also requested that the initial conference be postponed.
Court’s action
The Court agreed with the defendants. It found good cause—an adequate reason—for postponing the initial conference and staying discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 11, 2022, without setting a new date. It stated that, if the case proceeded after the Court decided the pending motions, it would promptly reschedule the conference and direct the parties to submit a revised scheduling order. The parties could request a conference with the Court before those motions were resolved.
What the order did not decide
This order did not decide the pending motions to dismiss or to compel arbitration, and it did not resolve the underlying claims. It addressed only the case schedule and discovery while those motions remained pending.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.