GM Photo, LLC v. Focus Camera, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-10339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In GM Photo v. Focus Camera, Judge Broderick denied defendants’ request to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending.
GM Photo, LLC and defendants Focus Camera, Inc., Michael Silberstein, and Chassy Kirzner, because discovery was not stayed and the parties were required to discuss its initial scope.
What happened
In GM Photo, LLC v. Focus Camera, Inc., the defendants asked the court to pause discovery until the court ruled on their motion to dismiss. GM Photo opposed the request and wanted discovery to continue.
The court said a discovery stay requires good cause and should not automatically follow the filing of a motion to dismiss. It found that the defendants had not shown strongly enough that GM Photo’s claims lacked merit, although full discovery during the pending motion could impose a significant burden.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the request for a discovery stay. The parties must meet and confer about the scope of initial discovery, and they may submit a joint letter seeking court intervention if they cannot agree.
The detailed version
- GM Photo, LLC v. Focus Camera, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10339
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 4, 2023
Background
Defendants Focus Camera, Inc., Michael Silberstein, and Chassy Kirzner moved to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. GM Photo, LLC opposed the request and sought to proceed with discovery.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the court may stay discovery for good cause. The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss can support a stay in some circumstances, but discovery should not routinely be paused just because such a motion has been filed. The court considered the breadth and burden of the requested discovery and the strength of the motion to dismiss. A stay is warranted when the moving party makes a strong showing that the plaintiff’s claims are unmeritorious.
Ruling
The court found that defendants had not made the required strong showing that GM Photo’s claims were unmeritorious. Although the court found that full discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending would impose a significant burden, it denied defendants’ request for a stay of discovery. The Clerk was directed to close the open motion at docket entry 59.
The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the scope of initial discovery while the motion to dismiss remained pending. If they could not agree, they could seek court intervention through a joint letter under the judge’s individual rules.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.