Rivera v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-09968
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rivera v. City of New York, Judge Woods adjourned the initial conference and stayed discovery pending decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Leslie Rivera, the City of New York, and the other defendants; the initial pretrial conference was postponed and discovery was paused while the motion to dismiss remains pending.
What happened
Rivera v. City of New York involves the parties’ request to postpone the initial pretrial conference while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending.
The court also treated the parties’ letter as a request to pause discovery. It found that the motion to dismiss appeared to have substantial grounds and that Leslie Rivera would not be unfairly harmed by a pause.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference and ordered discovery stayed until the court decides the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09968
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 9, 2022
Background
The parties submitted a letter requesting that the initial pretrial conference be adjourned, or postponed, until the court decided the defendants’ November 19, 2021 motion to dismiss. The court also construed the letter as a motion to stay discovery, meaning to pause the exchange of information and evidence in the case.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. The court considered whether the defendants had made a strong showing that Leslie Rivera’s claims were unmeritorious, the scope and burden of discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to Rivera. It found that the motion to dismiss appeared to have substantial grounds and that there was no indication Rivera would be unfairly prejudiced by a stay.
Ruling
The court granted the request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. It also ordered that discovery be stayed pending the court’s decision on the defendants’ November 19, 2021 motion to dismiss. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.