Vogel v. Takeone Network Corp.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vogel v. TakeOne Network Corp., Judge Ramos addressed defendants’ request to pause discovery while their dismissal motion was pending, but the excerpt does not state the request’s disposition.
The defendants sought to pause discovery, and the plaintiff opposed the request. The order concerns the scope and timing of discovery, but the excerpt does not clearly state whether the stay was granted or denied.
What happened
In Vogel v. TakeOne Network Corp., the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss the amended complaint was pending. The defendants argued that the claims had serious legal deficiencies and that the plaintiff’s discovery requests were broad and burdensome.
The defendants pointed to requests for copies of entire computer drives, company software, fundraising records, investor communications, and other commercially sensitive information. They also argued that a pause would not unfairly harm the plaintiff because the dismissal motion was already fully briefed and the pause would last only while the court considered it. The plaintiff opposed the request.
The excerpt does not expressly say whether the discovery stay was granted or denied. It does state that a pre-motion conference would be held by telephone on March 21, 2023, and the order was signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos.
The detailed version
- Vogel v. Takeone Network Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-03991
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 13, 2023
Background
The defendants—TakeOne Network Corp. doing business as Wrapbook, Ali Javid, Naysawn Naji, Hesham El-Nahhas, and Cameron Woodward—asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) while their motion to dismiss the amended complaint remained pending. The plaintiff opposed the request. The defendants stated that the motion to dismiss had been fully briefed on December 2, 2022.
Arguments for a Discovery Stay
The defendants argued that the motion to dismiss raised substantial legal arguments against all of the plaintiff’s claims. They contended that the amended complaint failed to plead a relationship creating legal duties and that the plaintiff’s misappropriation claims did not satisfy applicable novelty and specificity requirements. They also argued that the plaintiff had not meaningfully disputed the legal standards presented in the dismissal motion.
The defendants further argued that the plaintiff’s discovery requests were unusually broad and would impose significant burdens. They identified requests for bit-by-bit copies of hard drives and other electronic media, documents concerning development of Wrapbook software, fundraising and investor records, capitalization and valuation information, the founders’ interests in the company, and a copy of proprietary software. They contended that some discovery could become unnecessary or require substantial narrowing if the motion to dismiss were granted in part.
Finally, the defendants argued that pausing discovery would not unfairly prejudice the plaintiff because the stay would last only while the court considered the pending motion. They contrasted that limited delay with the costs of proceeding with broad discovery.
Court Action
The excerpt ends with “SO ORDERED” and states that a pre-motion conference would be held by telephone on March 21, 2023. It does not expressly state that the request for a discovery stay was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the excerpt does not establish the precise disposition of that request. Judge Edgardo Ramos signed the order dated March 13, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.