Tavarez v. Ultimate Nutrition, Inc.

Background

Ultimate Nutrition, Inc., the defendant, asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending. The request concerned a lawsuit alleging that Ultimate Nutrition’s website did not comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The opinion does not decide whether those claims are legally sufficient.

The court had ordered Victoriano Tavarez to oppose the request by April 22, 2022, if he wished to do so. The court had not received a letter opposing the stay. The parties had not served written discovery requests, deposition notices, or subpoenas.

Arguments for the Stay

Ultimate Nutrition argued that the motion to dismiss was not legally unfounded and that the issues raised by the motion were addressed by developed case law, although the opinion notes that courts had reached differing conclusions. It also argued that delaying discovery would not significantly prejudice Tavarez because briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete and discovery had not begun.

Ultimate Nutrition further argued that potential discovery about website operation or coding could be technically detailed and burdensome. It stated that it is not in the business of website development or coding and might need information from third parties or assistance from experts.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court considered the factors it identified for a discovery stay: the breadth of the discovery sought, the burden of responding, the prejudice to the party opposing the stay, and the strength of the motion or motions supporting the request.

The court granted Ultimate Nutrition’s request for a stay of discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss or until further order of the court. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss or resolve the underlying claims.