Baerga v. City of New York
- Loretta Preska
- 1:21-cv-05762
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baerga v. City of New York, Judge Preska partly adopted defendants’ schedule, allowing limited discovery while staying other discovery pending their dismissal motion.
The individual plaintiffs, organizational plaintiffs, class-related claims, and defendants are affected by the division between discovery that may continue and discovery that is stayed.
What happened
Baerga v. City of New York concerns the parties’ competing proposals for managing discovery in a case involving individual, organizational, and class-related claims.
The court rejected defendants’ proposal to divide discovery into phases, but allowed discovery to continue on the individual plaintiffs’ underlying claims, the organizational plaintiffs’ standing, and issues needed for class certification. It paused discovery about the municipal-liability claims, the substance of the class claims, and the substance of the organizational plaintiffs’ claims while defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending.
Judge Preska adopted defendants’ proposed schedule in part and stayed the specified discovery. The court will reconsider the paused discovery after resolving the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Baerga v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-05762
- Loretta Preska
- June 29, 2023
Background
At a June 28, 2023 conference, the parties presented competing discovery schedules. The court took the issue under advisement and then ruled on how discovery would proceed.
Defendants proposed dividing discovery into phases. The court declined to do that, explaining that the injuries at issue were not solely attributable to the named individual defendants and that courts are generally reluctant to separate discovery about class claims from discovery on the merits. The court nevertheless concluded that some discovery management was appropriate because defendants had recently filed a motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The court adopted in part defendants’ proposed schedule. It allowed discovery to proceed concerning the individual plaintiffs’ underlying claims, whether the organizational plaintiffs have standing to sue, and limited discovery needed for the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class.
The court stayed discovery concerning the plaintiffs’ Monell claims, which allege municipal responsibility; the merits of the class claims; and the merits of the organizational plaintiffs’ claims. The stay will remain pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, and the court will revisit the issue after that motion is resolved. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.