Richardson v. City of New York

Background

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, New York City Health and Hospitals, and five individuals. He alleges violations of his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights while he was a pretrial detainee at Rikers Island. The allegations include use of a chemical agent and solitary confinement despite his asthma, problems involving COVID-19 vaccination and a possible allergic reaction, and refusal to allow him to shower during Ramadan.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They argued, among other things, that the Prison Litigation Reform Act barred the claims, that the alleged conduct did not amount to constitutional violations, and that some defendants were protected by qualified immunity. That motion had not yet been fully briefed when the court considered the discovery issue.

Request to Stay Discovery

The parties jointly sought an adjournment of the initial case-management conference until the motion to dismiss was decided. Because postponing that conference would effectively pause discovery, the court treated the request as a motion to stay discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That rule permits a court to pause discovery when there is good cause.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered the breadth and burden of discovery, possible prejudice, and the strength of the pending motion to dismiss.

The court found that the complaint involved numerous incidents, medical issues, many defendants, and individuals sued in their personal capacities. Discovery had not yet begun, but it was likely to be broad and might require medical expert discovery. These considerations favored a stay.

No party opposed the stay. The plaintiff and all defendants joined the request, so the court found no prejudice to a party opposing the pause.

The court did not predict the outcome of the motion to dismiss. It found, however, that the motion was not legally unfounded and presented substantial arguments for dismissing many, if not all, of the claims, with most arguments supported by Second Circuit case law. Because the motion could resolve some or all of the case, this factor also favored a stay.

Disposition

The court granted the requested stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The parties may not issue discovery requests or subpoenas while that motion is pending. Within 21 days after Judge Engelmayer’s decision on the motion to dismiss, if claims remain, the plaintiff must send Judge Parker a letter requesting a new case-management-conference date.