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 during Cuomo’s time as governor, Cuomo engaged in sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination, and retaliation. She further alleges that DeRosa, DesRosiers, and Mogul aided that conduct or otherwise retaliated against her. Her claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Protection Clause through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The defendants filed motions seeking dismissal of some or all of Bennett’s claims. 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 to dismiss were pending, the defendants filed two motions asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the court ruled on the dismissal motions.

Legal standard

The court explained that a party seeking a discovery stay must show good cause. A pending motion to dismiss does not automatically stop discovery. Courts generally consider whether the claims appear clearly without merit, how broad and burdensome discovery would be, and whether delaying discovery would unfairly prejudice the opposing party.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that the defendants had not made the required strong showing that Bennett’s claims were unmeritorious. The court stated that the defendants’ central argument was that Bennett had not plausibly alleged facts supporting her harassment, discrimination, or aiding-and-abetting claims. But Bennett’s opposition papers showed that she had facts and legal authority supporting the sufficiency of her complaint. The court therefore concluded that the complaint was not facially deficient and that resolving the motions to dismiss would require close review of the factual allegations. The court also noted that the pending motions would not completely dispose of the case because Cuomo had not sought dismissal of the harassment claims.

The court also found that the defendants had not shown discovery would be especially burdensome or wide-ranging. They did not identify discovery requests from Bennett, explain how long discovery would take, quantify the material sought, or provide other evidence of substantial burden. The court found that the case involved four defendants and related events, and that the discovery’s scope was unlikely to change substantially based on the rulings on the motions to dismiss. Discovery concerning Cuomo would likely continue because his harassment claims remained pending, and DeRosa, DesRosiers, and Mogul could remain relevant witnesses even if the claims against them were dismissed.

Finally, the court found little risk of prejudice to Bennett from a stay because many facts had already been recorded during a separate investigation by the New York Attorney General. But the court emphasized that the absence of prejudice is not, by itself, enough to justify a stay.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ motions to stay discovery. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions at Docs. 48 and 49. The court stated that this amended Opinion and Order superseded the Opinion and Order entered at Doc. 67; the amendment addressed the designation of attorneys’ clients and was otherwise materially identical.