Trustees of the Local 854 Pension Fund v. Barrett
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-01160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Trustees of the Local 854 Pension Fund v. Barrett, Judge Rearden denied without prejudice defendants’ request to stay discovery.
The defendants’ discovery-stay request was denied without prejudice, so the order did not pause discovery. The plaintiffs may continue pursuing discovery, subject to future disputes and any later court rulings.
What happened
Trustees of the Local 854 Pension Fund v. Barrett concerns defendants’ request to pause discovery while they prepared a motion to dismiss the pension funds’ claims involving liabilities allegedly owed by Advance Transit Co., Inc. Defendants argued that the discovery requests were broad and burdensome and that their anticipated motion could end or narrow the case.
The court found that defendants had not shown the required good cause for stopping discovery. Although defendants described the requests as extensive, they did not provide enough specific information about the discovery’s scope or the cost of responding. The court did not decide whether the anticipated motion to dismiss would succeed.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden denied without prejudice defendants’ request to stay discovery. The court said defendants could file a letter-motion about future discovery disputes and ordered the parties to file a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order by August 24, 2023.
The detailed version
- Trustees of the Local 854 Pension Fund v. Barrett · No. 1:23-cv-01160
- Rearden
- Aug. 10, 2023
Background
The defendants—Kenneth Barrett, Gina Barrett, Kerry Barrett, and 745 Whittier Street LLC—asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while they prepared a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs are trustees of the Local 854 Pension Fund and related funds. According to defendants’ letter, the action is the third related case seeking to collect employee-benefit contributions and withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act from liabilities allegedly owed by non-party Advance Transit Co., Inc.
Defendants argued that their anticipated motion to dismiss raised potentially case-ending issues, including claim preclusion, lack of federal jurisdiction, and failure to plead sufficient facts. They also argued that the plaintiffs’ discovery requests were unusually broad and would require extensive business, financial, and personal tax records. Defendants contended that pausing discovery would avoid unnecessary expense and would not meaningfully prejudice the plaintiffs.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may limit or stay discovery for good cause. The court explained that, when deciding whether to stay discovery during a possible motion to dismiss, courts consider the strength of the anticipated motion, the breadth and burden of the requested discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.
The court concluded that defendants had not demonstrated good cause. Defendants asserted that the discovery was extraordinarily broad and burdensome, but they did not provide sufficient details about either the discovery’s scope or the cost of responding. The court specifically found that the lack of particulars prevented defendants’ assertions from supporting a stay.
The opinion is an order on discovery, not a decision on the anticipated motion to dismiss. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by claim preclusion, outside the court’s jurisdiction, or inadequately pleaded.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden denied without prejudice defendants’ request to stay discovery. The court stated that defendants may file a letter-motion about future disputes concerning the scope of discovery. It also ordered the parties to file a joint proposed case-management plan and scheduling order by August 24, 2023, and directed the clerk to terminate the docket entry for the stay request.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.