Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-00321
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, Judge Engelmayer deferred a discovery-stay request to a conference and excused advance case-plan submission.
The six CUNY faculty plaintiffs, the defendants, and the parties' counsel were affected by the court's scheduling decision: discovery was not yet stayed, but the proposed case-management plan was not due before the March 9 conference.
What happened
In Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, six CUNY faculty members alleged that their union representation and union-dues deductions violated their First Amendment rights. The defendants said they planned to ask the court to dismiss the claims.
The defendants asked to pause discovery, postpone the case-management-plan deadline, and use the scheduled March 9 conference to discuss those requests. The plaintiffs did not object.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer did not decide whether to pause discovery. He said the issue would be addressed at the March 9 conference and ordered that counsel need not submit a proposed case-management plan beforehand.
The detailed version
- Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY · No. 1:22-cv-00321
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
The document includes a request from the State defendants, through an Assistant New York Attorney General, concerning the schedule in the case. The plaintiffs are six CUNY faculty members who resigned from the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY. According to the defendants' description of the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the union is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist and does not fairly represent their interests.
The plaintiffs challenge the Taylor Law and the collective bargaining agreement between the union and CUNY. They allege that exclusive union representation violates their First Amendment right to associate with others. Three plaintiffs also allege that the continued deduction of union dues after they resigned violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Requested Schedule Changes
The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while their motions to dismiss were pending. They also asked the court to postpone the deadline for filing a case-management plan and to use the March 9, 2022 initial pretrial conference to discuss these requests. The defendants argued that their planned motions to dismiss presented substantial arguments, that discovery could be burdensome and unnecessary if the motions ended the case, and that a short delay would not prejudice the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not object to the requests.
The letter also described the defendants' anticipated dismissal arguments, including arguments concerning exclusive representation, union-dues deductions, mootness, and immunity. Those arguments were presented as reasons to pause discovery; the opinion does not state that the court decided them.
Court’s Action
The court did not decide whether discovery should be stayed. Instead, it stated that it would take up that issue at the March 9 conference. The court also ruled that counsel did not need to submit a proposed case-management plan before that conference. The document does not report a ruling on the defendants' forthcoming motions to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.