Syl Consulting LLC v. Community USA II LLC
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:23-cv-01377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Syl Consulting LLC v. Community USA II LLC, Judge McMahon’s materials show only a defense request to stay discovery; no court ruling appears.
The parties to the action and potentially third parties who might receive subpoenas, although the provided materials do not show any ruling affecting them.
What happened
Syl Consulting LLC and Nicolas Sangros sued Community USA II LLC. The submitted document is a letter from Community USA II LLC’s lawyer asking the court to pause discovery and postpone a scheduled conference while the court considers the defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the later-filed action.
The defendant argued that discovery might be unnecessary or confusing if the case were dismissed or stayed, and that third-party subpoenas could create inconsistent obligations or rulings. The letter states that the plaintiffs did not agree to the request.
The document does not show a ruling on the request. Judge Colleen McMahon is identified as the judge, but the materials provided do not state whether she granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the application.
The detailed version
- Syl Consulting LLC v. Community USA II LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01377
- Colleen McMahon
- May 4, 2023
Document and requested relief
The provided text is a May 2, 2023 letter from David C. Van Leeuwen of Peyrot & Associates, PC, counsel for Community USA II LLC. The letter supports the defendant’s application to stay discovery under Rule 4(G) of the court’s Individual Rules and Practice in Civil Cases. It also asks to adjourn the conference scheduled for May 4, 2023.
Arguments described in the letter
Community USA II LLC argues that discovery should be paused while the court considers its motion to dismiss or stay this second-filed action. The defendant cites decisions stating that a reasonable delay in discovery, without additional prejudice, does not by itself establish unfair prejudice. The letter also asserts that the plaintiffs’ need for discovery is limited because their alleged claim is for breach of contract, while the defendant may need discovery from third parties. According to the letter, that third-party discovery could become ineffective or confusing if the action is dismissed or stayed and could lead to inconsistent discovery rulings.
The letter states that counsel for both sides conferred and that the plaintiffs did not consent to the application.
Disposition
The supplied materials do not include a judicial order or other ruling resolving the request to stay discovery, the request to adjourn the conference, or the motion to dismiss or stay. Accordingly, no disposition can be stated from this text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.