Live Brands Holdings v. Gastronomico Gracias a Dios
Live Brands Holdings, LLC v. Gastronomico Gracias a Dios, Sociedad Responsabilidad Limitada de Capital Variable
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-01213
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Live Brands Holdings v. Gastronomico Gracias a Dios, Judge Cronan extended deadlines 60 days but denied without prejudice a request to pause discovery.
The defendants received a 60-day extension and may renew their request to pause discovery on August 19, 2022, but discovery was not stayed. The plaintiff received the extension but remained subject to ongoing discovery obligations.
What happened
In Live Brands Holdings, LLC v. Gastronomico Gracias a Dios, Sociedad Responsabilidad Limitada de Capital Variable, the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while it considered their motion to dismiss. The plaintiff opposed an indefinite pause but agreed to a 60-day extension of case deadlines.
The court granted a 60-day extension of all deadlines in the Case Management Order. It denied the request to stay discovery without prejudice, meaning the defendants could ask again later.
The court said the defendants may renew their request to stay discovery on August 19, 2022, after the extension ends. Judge John P. Cronan also directed the Clerk to close the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Live Brands Holdings v. Gastronomico Gracias a Dios · No. 1:20-cv-01213
- John Cronan
- June 21, 2022
Background
The defendants filed a letter-motion asking the court to stay, or pause, the parties’ discovery obligations while the court considered their pending motion to dismiss. The defendants argued that the motion to dismiss was meritorious and could dispose of the entire case, that the plaintiff’s discovery requests were extremely broad and burdensome, and that the plaintiff would not be unfairly prejudiced by a temporary stay. The defendants pointed to requests for communications and dealings involving three non-party distributors, detailed financial information, and tax filings. They also argued that three of the four individual defendant-shareholders had not signed the memorandum of understanding and were not liable under it.
The plaintiff opposed an indefinite stay but agreed to a 60-day extension of all deadlines in the Case Management Order. The defendants said they would accept that extension if the court expected to rule on the motion to dismiss within 60 days. The letter explained that the parties agreed discovery costs could be substantial and might be unnecessary.
Legal standard
The court’s order applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows a court, for good cause, to issue a protective order against discovery that would cause undue burden or expense. The letter cited factors including the strength of the motion to dismiss, the breadth and burden of discovery, and possible unfair prejudice to the party opposing a stay. The opinion also noted that discovery is not automatically paused just because a motion to dismiss is pending.
Ruling
The court granted a 60-day extension of all deadlines in the Case Management Order and denied the request to stay discovery without prejudice. The court stated that, at the end of the extension, on August 19, 2022, the defendants may renew their request to stay discovery. Judge John P. Cronan directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion pending at Docket Number 61.
The order addressed discovery management and did not decide the merits of the pending motion to dismiss or the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.