Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 31, 2023

Thorne v. Capital Music Gear LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-00776
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Thorne v. Capital Music Gear, Judge Schofield granted Capital Music Gear’s request to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending.

Who this affects

Braulio Thorne and Capital Music Gear, LLC; discovery and all deadlines in the case-management and scheduling order were paused or adjourned.

What happened

In Thorne v. Capital Music Gear, Capital Music Gear, LLC asked the court to pause discovery while it pursued a motion to dismiss Braulio Thorne’s amended complaint. The parties had previously agreed to pause discovery, but the court had rejected that part of their agreement.

The court ordered Thorne to oppose the motion to dismiss by June 23, 2023, and Capital Music Gear to file its reply by June 30, 2023. The court then granted the request to stay discovery and adjourned all deadlines in the case-management and scheduling order without setting new dates.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order; she ruled only on the briefing schedule and the request to pause discovery.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Thorne v. Capital Music Gear LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00776
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
May 31, 2023

Background

The court’s March 22, 2023, case-management and scheduling order required the parties to complete fact discovery by July 27, 2023. On May 12, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation proposing a briefing schedule for Capital Music Gear, LLC’s anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The stipulation also stated that the parties agreed to pause discovery while the motion was pending. On May 16, 2023, the court approved the stipulation except for the proposed discovery pause, which it struck.

On May 30, 2023, Capital Music Gear filed its motion to dismiss and a separate letter motion seeking a stay of discovery. The court noted that a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery and that courts generally consider the apparent strength of the motion, the scope and burden of discovery, and possible unfair prejudice when deciding whether to stay discovery.

Ruling

The court ordered Braulio Thorne to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss by June 23, 2023, and ordered Capital Music Gear to file its reply by June 30, 2023. Considering the circumstances described in Capital Music Gear’s letter and the strength of its motion, the court granted Capital Music Gear’s request for a stay of discovery. The court also ordered that all deadlines in the case-management and scheduling order were adjourned without a new date. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.