Lantz v. Liebenberg
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-04855
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lantz v. Liebenberg, Judge Torres denied defendants’ request to stay discovery pending mediation and motions to dismiss.
The ruling affected the defendants’ request to pause discovery in Lantz v. Liebenberg. Discovery was not stayed by this order; the opinion does not state any further effect on the parties or the case.
What happened
In Lantz v. Liebenberg, the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while the parties attended mediation and the court considered pending motions to dismiss. The case’s discovery deadline was March 15, 2023, and mediation was scheduled for February 9, 2023.
The defendants argued that pausing discovery would conserve resources and avoid discovery costs if the case were dismissed. They also argued that discovery should wait while the court considered whether it had authority over two defendants who, the parties agreed, lived outside the United States. Plaintiff agreed that a stay was appropriate under the circumstances but disputed the defendants’ arguments about jurisdiction and overlapping claims in another case.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the request to stay discovery. The opinion does not explain the reason for the denial.
The detailed version
- Lantz v. Liebenberg · No. 1:22-cv-04855
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 5, 2023
Background
The defendants submitted a letter asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery until after a scheduled mediation and resolution of two pending motions to dismiss. The court had previously set March 15, 2023, as the end of fact discovery. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses later scheduled mediation for February 9, 2023. The court had also deferred Plaintiff’s deadlines to oppose the motions to dismiss and a Rule 11 motion until after mediation.
Arguments
The defendants argued that pausing discovery would conserve the parties’ and the court’s resources while settlement was possible. They alternatively argued that good cause supported a stay until the court resolved a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning the defendants disputed whether the court had legal authority over them. The defendants stated that Liebenberg and Sirois lived outside the United States and argued that Plaintiff had not alleged enough facts connecting them to New York. Plaintiff disputed that argument, although the opinion states that Plaintiff had not yet filed opposition to the pending motions or sought jurisdiction-related discovery.
The defendants also pointed to a different case involving potentially overlapping factual issues and different discovery deadlines. They argued that completing discovery in this case before the motions to dismiss were resolved could create practical problems and could prevent them from fully defending the case. The parties had agreed to exchange some discovery materials informally to assist mediation.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres denied the defendants’ request to stay discovery. The order does not provide a reason for the denial and does not rule on the pending motions to dismiss or decide the personal-jurisdiction issue.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.