Press v. Primavera
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-10971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Press v. Primavera, Judge Rochon granted a stay of discovery while deciding Primavera’s motion to dismiss Press’s defamation case.
The ruling pauses discovery for Robert D. Press and Patrick J. Primavera while the court considers Primavera’s motion to dismiss Press’s defamation claim.
What happened
Robert D. Press sued Patrick J. Primavera for defamation, alleging that Primavera made false statements about him to the Securities and Exchange Commission during its investigation of Press’s company. Primavera asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that he had absolute immunity from the defamation claim.
While that dismissal motion was pending, Primavera asked to pause discovery. Press opposed the request, arguing that the case had already been delayed and that ordinary discovery would not be overly burdensome. Primavera argued that discovery could be broad and involve documents, depositions, and subpoenas to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request to stay discovery. She found that the dismissal motion could end the entire case, raised substantial arguments, and could avoid significant discovery; she also found that further delay would not significantly harm Press. The case-management and scheduling order was stayed until the court decides the dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Press v. Primavera · No. 1:21-cv-10971
- Rochon
- Dec. 16, 2022
Background
Robert D. Press brought one defamation claim against Patrick J. Primavera. Press alleged that Primavera, who had previously worked for him, submitted a declaration to the Securities and Exchange Commission blaming fraud and corruption on Press. The statements were made during the agency’s investigation of Press’s company after two whistleblower complaints. Press later reached an agreement with the agency without admitting or denying fraud allegations.
Primavera filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint, arguing that absolute immunity protected statements he made to the Securities and Exchange Commission during its investigation. Press argued that Primavera was not immune and that the immunity issue was not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss.
Motion to Stay Discovery
While the motion to dismiss was pending, Primavera filed a letter-motion to stay discovery. A discovery stay pauses the exchange of documents, depositions, and other information while another motion is being decided. Press opposed the stay, arguing that the case had already been pending for more than a year without discovery and that the discovery would be standard and not unduly burdensome.
The court explained that a party seeking a discovery stay must show good cause. It considered three factors: the breadth of the requested discovery, the possible prejudice from delay, and the strength of the pending motion to dismiss. The court also considered whether the motion to dismiss could dispose of the entire action.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court found that all three factors supported a stay. First, Primavera’s motion to dismiss could dispose of the entire case, and the court found that he had presented substantial arguments concerning whether statements made to the Securities and Exchange Commission during an ongoing investigation—but not in response to a subpoena or as a whistleblower—could receive absolute immunity.
Second, the court found that discovery could be broad. Although discovery was still in its early stages, Primavera represented that it would involve significant document discovery, several depositions, and third-party discovery from the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning its investigation of Press. Third, although the court recognized that the case had remained at an early stage for some time, it found that further delay would not significantly prejudice Press.
The court granted the request to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending. It also stayed the Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order until the court issued its opinion on the motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending stay motion. The opinion does not decide whether Primavera is entitled to absolute immunity or whether Press’s defamation claim succeeds.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.