RBG Management Corp. v. Village Super Market, Inc.

Background

RBG Management Corp. brought claims against Village Super Market, Inc. for tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with economic relations and prospective economic relations, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that Village caused Wakefern Food Corporation, a third party, to stop supplying RBG with private-label products more than two years before a supply contract ended. RBG alleges that the interruption caused various costs and losses.

Village moved to dismiss the entire complaint. Its arguments included that an economic-interest defense defeated the tortious-interference claims, that RBG had not adequately alleged a breach of contract by Wakefern, that RBG had not pleaded wrongful conduct for its prospective-economic-relations claim, and that the unfair-competition and unjust-enrichment claims lacked required factual or legal support. Village also moved to dismiss RBG’s claim for punitive damages.

The parties agreed to begin some discovery but disagreed about whether discovery should continue while the motion to dismiss was pending. Village therefore filed a letter-motion asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery. RBG opposed that request.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that it may pause discovery for good cause, but the mere filing of a motion to dismiss is not enough. It considered the breadth and burden of discovery, possible prejudice to the party opposing the stay, and the strength of the pending motion to dismiss.

The court found that Village had described discovery as costly, extensive, and potentially contentious, including senior-executive depositions and several years of documents. But Village’s statements were too general and did not show an unusual burden beyond the ordinary costs of civil discovery. This factor therefore did not support a stay.

The court also found that delaying discovery could prejudice RBG. RBG argued that witnesses’ memories could fade because the dispute involved a relationship lasting approximately 14 years. Although the court did not decide how much of that period would ultimately be discoverable, it concluded that the risk of fading memories weighed against pausing discovery.

Finally, the court said Village had raised serious arguments that could resolve the entire case if accepted, but RBG had presented significant responses, including an argument that factual development was needed. Because both sides had strong arguments, Village had not made the required strong showing that RBG’s claims were without merit.

Disposition

The court denied Defendant’s request to stay discovery. It directed the parties to confer and resubmit a Civil Case Management and Scheduling Order by February 1, 2023, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter-motion at ECF No. 20. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon did not decide Village’s motion to dismiss in this order.