Lee v. Yang
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-07934
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lee v. Yang, Judge Schofield granted the application and stayed discovery pending a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The parties to Lee v. Yang—Erica Lee, Andrew Yang, and Friends of Andrew Yang—because discovery is stayed pending the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Lee v. Yang, defendants Andrew Yang and Friends of Andrew Yang asked the court to pause discovery while their planned motion to dismiss was considered. Plaintiff Erica Lee consented to the request.
Defendants said they would move to dismiss all of Lee’s claims and that conducting discovery before the court decided that motion would waste resources. They also cited concerns about disclosing potentially sensitive and confidential information before a protective order was approved.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application and stayed discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of Lee’s claims.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Yang · No. 1:21-cv-07934
- Lorna Schofield
- May 25, 2022
Background
Defendants Andrew Yang and Friends of Andrew Yang asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss was pending. The request was made with the consent of all parties. Plaintiff Erica Lee is identified as the plaintiff, and the opinion refers to the claims asserted by her.
Arguments
Defendants stated that they planned to move to dismiss all of Lee’s claims as a matter of law. They argued that discovery while the motion was pending would not make good use of the parties’ resources and would not serve judicial efficiency. They also expressed concern that discovery could require the premature disclosure of sensitive and confidential information. Defendants stated that a protective order would need to be negotiated and approved before discovery was produced.
Ruling
The court’s order states: “Application GRANTED. Discovery is STAYED pending a decision on motion to dismiss.” Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore granted the application and paused discovery. The opinion does not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.