Bennett v. Cuomo

Background

Charlotte Bennett sued Andrew M. Cuomo, Melissa DeRosa, Jill DesRosiers, and Judith Mogul. Bennett alleges that, while she worked in New York state government, Cuomo engaged in sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination, and retaliation. She alleges that DeRosa, DesRosiers, and Mogul, described as three of Cuomo’s former top aides, aided that conduct or otherwise retaliated against her.

Bennett asserts claims under the Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants filed motions to dismiss. DeRosa, DesRosiers, and Mogul sought dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. Cuomo sought dismissal of Bennett’s retaliation claims but not her sexual-harassment claims. While those motions were being briefed, the defendants moved to stay, or pause, discovery until the court ruled on the motions to dismiss.

Legal Standard

The court explained that a party seeking a discovery stay must show good cause. A motion to dismiss does not automatically stop discovery. Courts typically consider whether the claims appear clearly without merit, whether discovery would impose a substantial burden that a stay would reduce, and whether the opposing party would suffer unfair prejudice.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the defendants had not made the required strong showing that Bennett’s claims were unmeritorious. The defendants argued that Bennett had not plausibly alleged facts supporting her harassment, discrimination, or aiding-and-abetting claims. But Bennett’s opposition papers identified facts and legal authority supporting her complaint, and resolving the motions to dismiss would likely require a close examination of the factual allegations. The court therefore did not find the complaint facially deficient. The court also noted that Cuomo had not sought dismissal of the harassment claims against him, so the case would continue against him regardless of the outcome of the pending motions.

The court also found that a stay would not meaningfully reduce the burden of discovery. The defendants did not identify particular discovery demands, explain how much material Bennett sought, estimate the expected duration or cost of discovery, or provide other evidence showing that discovery would be especially burdensome. The court reasoned that discovery concerning Cuomo would likely be needed for the harassment claims even if the retaliation claims were dismissed. It also found that DeRosa, DesRosiers, and Mogul could remain important witnesses regarding the alleged events even if the claims against them were dismissed.

Finally, the court found little risk that Bennett would be unfairly prejudiced by a stay, partly because a substantial investigation by the New York Attorney General had already memorialized many facts. But the court emphasized that the absence of prejudice, by itself, was not enough to justify a stay.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the defendants’ motions to stay discovery. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motions at docket entries 48 and 49. This order addressed only whether discovery should be paused; it did not decide the pending motions to dismiss.