Broccoli v. Ashworth
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-06931
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Broccoli v. Ashworth, Judge Karas ordered plaintiffs to respond by September 22 to defendants’ request to stay discovery pending dismissal motions.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the action were affected by the court’s deadline for responding to the request to pause discovery. The order did not decide whether discovery would actually be stayed.
What happened
In Domenico Broccoli et al. v. Lance Ashworth et al., the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while they pursued dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint.
The defendants argued that the claims covered many years, involved allegations outside the limitations period, and would require burdensome discovery. They also argued that a prior amended complaint had been dismissed in its entirety and that the Third Amended Complaint still lacked required allegations. The opinion text does not include the plaintiffs’ response.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not decide the request to stay discovery in this order. He ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the two letters concerning the proposed stay by September 22, 2023.
The detailed version
- Broccoli v. Ashworth · No. 7:21-cv-06931
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 20, 2023
Request before the court
Counsel for defendants Lance Ashworth, Mara Farrell, and William Sandy asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint were pending. The letter adopted arguments made in a September 14, 2023 letter from co-defendant Douglas Mackey’s counsel.
Defendants’ arguments
The defendants argued that the Third Amended Complaint alleged facts spanning more than a decade, and in some places almost two decades. They asserted that many allegations concerned events outside the applicable limitations period and that gathering documents and information covering that period would be burdensome. They also argued that a short discovery pause would not prejudice the plaintiffs because pending dismissal motions could eliminate the action or substantially reduce the scope of discovery.
The defendants further asserted that the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint had previously been dismissed in its entirety and that the Third Amended Complaint did not contain the allegations needed to support the claims. These statements are arguments made in the defendants’ letter, not findings made in this order.
Court’s action
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered the plaintiffs to respond by September 22, 2023, to the two letters concerning whether discovery should be stayed. The text provided does not show that the court granted or denied the requested discovery stay, ruled on the motions to dismiss, or decided the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.