CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp.
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-00377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In CT Espresso v. Lavazza, Judge Broderick allowed a response to Lavazza’s discovery-stay request but did not decide the request.
CT Espresso LLC and defendants Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp. and Luigi Lavazza S.P.A.; the provided order sets a response deadline but does not decide whether discovery will be stayed.
What happened
CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp. concerns a defense request to pause discovery while the court considers Lavazza’s partial motion to dismiss CT Espresso’s defamation and trade-libel claims. The letter says CT Espresso alleges that Lavazza breached a settlement agreement by reporting suspected counterfeit Lavazza products to Amazon.
Lavazza argued that discovery would be broad and burdensome, while CT Espresso would not be unfairly harmed by a brief pause because the case was at an early stage. The filing asks the court to pause discovery, including the required conference to plan discovery, until the dismissal motion is resolved.
Judge Broderick ordered that CT Espresso could file a response of no more than three pages by May 23, 2022. The provided text does not show a ruling granting or denying the requested stay.
The detailed version
- CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-00377
- Denise Cote
- May 19, 2022
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a letter from counsel for defendants Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp. and Luigi Lavazza S.P.A., together called “Lavazza,” seeking an order staying, or pausing, discovery. The letter is accompanied by an order stating that CT Espresso may file a response of no more than three pages by May 23, 2022.
Background
According to the letter, CT Espresso alleges that Lavazza breached a settlement agreement when a Lavazza employee reported to Amazon that CT Espresso was selling counterfeit Lavazza products. CT Espresso’s complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, defamation, and trade libel. The letter states that Lavazza filed a partial motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of the defamation and trade-libel claims.
The letter says the parties had not yet held the required conference to plan discovery, the court had not issued an initial pretrial-conference notice, and discovery had not begun. It also says CT Espresso served document requests and a proposed discovery-planning report on May 18, 2022.
Arguments for a discovery stay
Lavazza argued that the pending dismissal motion presented substantial grounds for dismissing the defamation and trade-libel claims. The arguments identified in the letter included New York’s litigation privilege, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and the alleged failure to plead malice and special damages for the trade-libel claim.
Lavazza also argued that discovery on the tort claims could involve Amazon’s reporting policies, the statements made to Amazon, the identities of people involved, and Lavazza’s knowledge and intent. It contended that this discovery could be unnecessary if the court dismissed those claims. Lavazza further argued that CT Espresso would not suffer unfair prejudice from a brief stay because the case was still at an early stage.
Court’s action
Judge Vernon S. Broderick allowed CT Espresso to file a response letter of no more than three pages by May 23, 2022. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied Lavazza’s request to stay discovery, and it does not decide the pending partial motion to dismiss.
Result and scope
The ruling shown is limited to allowing a response to the request for a discovery stay. No final ruling on discovery, the dismissal motion, or the pleaded claims appears in the provided text.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.