Bensmaine v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-04816
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bensmaine v. City of New York, Judge Rochon denied defendants’ motion to stay discovery because it was untimely and identified no overlooked law or facts.
The defendants’ request to pause discovery was denied; any request to divide Monell discovery was directed to Judge Cave.
What happened
In Bensmaine v. City of New York, the defendants asked the court to pause discovery. The court had previously said that any such request would be evaluated under the standard for reconsidering an earlier ruling.
The defendants argued that changes in the discovery process justified renewing their request. The court found that they had only described the current state of discovery and had not shown that the court had overlooked law or facts that would change its earlier decision.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the motion to stay discovery. She also stated that, if the defendants wanted to divide discovery concerning the City’s municipal-liability issues, they should raise that request with Judge Cave, who was handling discovery matters.
The detailed version
- Bensmaine v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-04816
- Rochon
- Oct. 20, 2022
Background
The defendants filed a motion asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery. The court had addressed the request the previous day and explained that any stay would be evaluated under the standard for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court had already denied the request because it was untimely and because the defendants had not identified overlooked law or facts that should change the original ruling.
Arguments and legal standard
The defendants argued that the “changed discovery landscape” justified renewing their request. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy committed to the district court’s discretion. It may be granted because of an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Ruling
Judge Rochon denied the motion to stay. She reasoned that the defendants had merely described the current state of discovery, and that participating in discovery was the situation contemplated when the earlier stay request was denied. The court also stated that, to the extent the defendants wanted to bifurcate, or divide, discovery concerning Monell issues, they should raise that motion with Judge Cave, to whom discovery had been referred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.