Broccoli v. Ashworth
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-06931
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Broccoli v. Ashworth, Judge Karas stayed discovery while defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint were pending, finding broad requests and little prejudice.
The stay pauses discovery for all parties in the action while the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint remain pending; the order does not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Broccoli v. Ashworth, Domenico Broccoli, GLD3 LLC, and Snook-9 Realty Inc. sued Lance Ashworth, Mara Farrell, Douglas Mackey, William Sandy, and Does 1–25. The complaint alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a RICO conspiracy, and interference with business relations under state law.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. While those motions were pending, the parties disputed whether discovery should continue. The court considered the large number and broad time range of the plaintiffs’ document requests, the defendants’ substantial arguments for dismissal, and the lack of a specific showing that delaying discovery would significantly harm the plaintiffs.
Judge Karas ordered that discovery be stayed until the court decides the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. He also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions to stay discovery. The order did not decide the motions to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Broccoli v. Ashworth · No. 7:21-cv-06931
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 11, 2023
Background
Domenico Broccoli, GLD3 LLC, and Snook-9 Realty Inc. sued Lance Ashworth, Mara Farrell, Douglas Mackey, William Sandy, and Does 1–25. The Third Amended Complaint asserts one claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), one claim for RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and a state-law claim for tortious interference with business relations.
On August 18, 2023, defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in its entirety. The opinion addresses defendants’ motions to stay discovery while those dismissal motions were pending. The court noted that defendants had previously succeeded in dismissing the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, but it did not decide the merits of the pending motions to dismiss in this order.
Reasons for the Discovery Stay
Under Rule 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense. Courts generally consider the scope and burden of the requested discovery, the strength of the pending motion to dismiss, and the risk of prejudice to the party opposing the stay.
The court found that the first factor favored a stay. On September 1, 2023, plaintiffs served 57 requests for production, many with numerous subparts. Most sought broad categories of communications and documents concerning numerous subjects, generally covering January 1, 2008, through the present. The court concluded that responding would likely require extensive review for relevance and privilege and could require a large production.
The court also found that the strength of the pending dismissal motions favored a stay. Defendants sought dismissal of the entire action, and the court concluded that they had presented substantial arguments for dismissal. The court expressly stated that it was not expressing a view on the merits of those motions at that time.
Finally, the court found that plaintiffs had not identified a specific reason the stay would significantly prejudice them. The court stated that waiting for a decision on a potentially case-dispositive motion, without additional prejudice, was not enough to defeat a discovery stay.
Disposition
The court ordered that discovery in the action be stayed pending its decision on defendants’ motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions to stay discovery. This order did not rule on the motions to dismiss or resolve the RICO, RICO-conspiracy, or tortious-interference claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.