CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp.
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-00377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
CT Espresso v. Lavazza Premium Coffees: Judge Broderick denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery while their partial dismissal motion remained pending.
The ruling requires discovery to continue rather than being paused while Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss is pending. It does not resolve Plaintiff’s claims or the partial motion to dismiss.
What happened
In CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp., Plaintiff alleged that Defendants breached a settlement agreement and made false reports to Amazon accusing Plaintiff of selling counterfeit products. Defendants asked the court to pause all discovery while their motion to dismiss the defamation and trade-libel claims was pending.
The court refused to pause discovery because the dismissal motion concerned only some claims and could not end the entire case. The court also concluded that discovery about the reports to Amazon would likely be relevant to all of Plaintiff’s claims, including the contract claim.
Judge Broderick denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and directed the Clerk to close that motion. The separate partial motion to dismiss remained pending.
The detailed version
- CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-00377
- Denise Cote
- May 24, 2022
Background
The case concerns a settlement agreement involving Plaintiff’s sale of certain coffee products. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants breached the agreement and committed defamation and trade libel by submitting at least seven reports to Amazon stating that Plaintiff was selling counterfeit products. Plaintiff alleged that the reports caused Amazon to suspend Plaintiff’s merchant account during the busiest time of the year.
Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of the defamation and trade-libel claims. While that motion was pending, Defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, all discovery.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. Courts generally consider the strength of the pending dismissal motion, the scope and burden of discovery, and possible unfair prejudice from continuing discovery.
The court found that Defendants’ dismissal motion was not potentially dispositive because it sought dismissal of only some claims, not the entire complaint. The court also found that discovery would largely be the same regardless of how it resolved the partial motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s claims all arose from the alleged reports to Amazon, and the contract allegedly barred one Defendant from filing complaints or notices with Amazon concerning the goods Plaintiff sold. As a result, discovery into the circumstances surrounding the reports would remain relevant even if the defamation and trade-libel claims were dismissed.
Disposition
The court denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 33. The opinion did not decide the pending partial motion to dismiss.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.