Collins v. Pearson Education, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-02219
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Collins v. Pearson Education, Judge Engelmayer set a response deadline for Pearson’s request to pause discovery but did not decide the request.
John Collins and Pearson Education, Inc.; the text sets a deadline for Collins to respond to Pearson’s request to pause discovery but does not decide that request.
What happened
In Collins v. Pearson Education, Inc., Pearson asked the court to pause discovery, including initial disclosures, while the court considered Pearson’s motions to dismiss and strike. Pearson argued that the motions raised substantial issues and that discovery could be broad and burdensome.
The filing says Collins opposed any discovery pause. Pearson argued that Collins would not be harmed by a temporary pause because the case was at an early stage and the motion to dismiss was fully briefed.
The court did not grant or deny the requested pause in the provided text. Judge Engelmayer ordered that Collins’s response, if any, was due July 19, 2023.
The detailed version
- Collins v. Pearson Education, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02219
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 14, 2023
Background
Pearson Education, Inc. sent the court a letter requesting an order staying, or temporarily pausing, all discovery in the case, including initial disclosures. Pearson asked for the pause until the court resolved its pending motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and its motion to strike under Rule 12(f).
Parties’ Positions
Pearson argued that its motions raised substantial issues about subject-matter jurisdiction, whether the complaint adequately alleged an injury and a claim under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, and whether information allegedly sent to Facebook could support Collins’s claim. Pearson also argued that a Pearson+ subscription agreement required arbitration and included a class-action waiver. According to Pearson, the proposed class was overly broad and discovery could be extensive and burdensome.
The letter states that Pearson had discussed the issue with Collins under the federal discovery rules and that Collins was not willing to agree to a discovery stay. Pearson argued that Collins would not be prejudiced because the case was at an early stage, the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, and any stay would be brief if the motion were denied.
Court’s Action
The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied Pearson’s request for a discovery stay. Instead, the court stated that it had received Pearson’s letter at docket 24 and ordered that Collins’s response, if any, was due July 19, 2023. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order on July 14, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.