Rosati v. Long Island Railroad
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-08594
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosati v. Long Island Railroad, Judge Schofield granted defendants’ request to stay fact discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss.
Steven Rosati and defendants Long Island Rail Road, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Patrick J. Foye; the fact-discovery deadline was paused while defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending.
What happened
In Steven Rosati v. Long Island Railroad, defendants asked the court to pause fact discovery—the exchange of evidence—while their motion to dismiss the amended complaint was considered. Plaintiff consented to the request.
Defendants argued that responding to anticipated requests for records and depositions would be burdensome and that the amended complaint did not state viable claims. The text also describes defendants’ arguments concerning several claims, but the court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application and stayed the fact-discovery deadline pending a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion seeking the stay.
The detailed version
- Rosati v. Long Island Railroad · No. 1:21-cv-08594
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 16, 2022
Background
Defendants Long Island Rail Road, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Patrick J. Foye moved to dismiss Steven Rosati’s first amended complaint. They separately asked the court to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss was being resolved. The opinion states that this was defendants’ first request for a stay and that Rosati consented.
The parties had previously adopted a discovery schedule, and the court had directed Rosati to file an amended complaint. Defendants argued that the amended complaint repeated alleged deficiencies in the original complaint, apart from adding a state-law defamation claim. Their arguments included that claims against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Long Island Rail Road did not meet the requirements discussed in Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York; that the claims against Foye did not allege his personal involvement; that the conspiracy claims under Section 1985 lacked an allegation of class-based discriminatory motive; and that the Section 1986 claim was derivative of the Section 1985 claim. Defendants also argued that the defamation claim failed because Rosati admitted that he was under investigation when Foye made the challenged statement, and that the collective-bargaining-agreement claim was precluded by the Railway Labor Act.
Issue and standard
The issue addressed in this order was whether to pause fact discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The court explained that a stay may be appropriate when the party seeking it shows good cause. Courts generally consider the strength of the argument that the claims lack merit, the scope and burden of discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the opposing party.
Ruling
The application was granted. The deadline for fact discovery was stayed pending a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of Rosati’s claims. The Clerk of Court was respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 27.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.