Tzur v. Henkel of America, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-02923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tzur v. Henkel of America, Inc., Judge Rochon granted an extension and partly adjourned the initial pretrial conference.
The scheduling rulings affected Plaintiff Mira Tzur and the defendants in the case by extending the response deadline and rescheduling the initial pretrial conference.
What happened
In Tzur v. Henkel of America, Inc., Plaintiff Mira Tzur asked for 30 more days to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The parties also asked to adjourn the initial pretrial conference scheduled for August 1, 2023.
The court granted the deadline extension, allowing Tzur to respond by August 17, 2023. It granted in part the request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference and rescheduled it for August 16, 2023, at 11:30 a.m.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery and does not always establish good cause for pausing discovery. The parties could request a discovery pause or indicate that they wanted one before the rescheduled conference.
The detailed version
- Tzur v. Henkel of America, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02923
- Rochon
- July 13, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Mira Tzur requested a 30-day extension, from July 17 to August 17, 2023, to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The parties were also scheduled for a settlement conference on July 24, 2023, and an initial pretrial conference on August 1, 2023. They jointly requested that the initial pretrial conference be adjourned because the motions to dismiss were pending.
Rulings
The court granted the request to extend Tzur’s deadline to respond to the motions to dismiss. Tzur’s response was due no later than August 17, 2023.
The court granted in part the request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference. The conference was rescheduled for August 16, 2023, at 11:30 a.m.
Discovery
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon stated that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery and does not always constitute good cause for a discovery stay. The parties were permitted to request a stay or indicate that they wanted one before the initial pretrial conference.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.