Netrebko v. Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc.

Background

Defendants Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. and Peter Gelb asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the court resolved their forthcoming motion to dismiss. Their request covered obligations under the court’s Pilot Program for Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action and other discovery obligations. The defendants stated that they intended to file the motion to dismiss by December 1, 2023. Netrebko declined to consent to the request.

Parties’ arguments

The defendants argued that there was good cause for a stay under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They asserted that Netrebko’s discrimination, defamation, and breach-of-contract claims were meritless or legally barred. They also argued that the Pilot Program required broad discovery, that responding would be particularly burdensome for them, and that Netrebko would not be prejudiced because the Metropolitan Opera had implemented litigation holds to preserve information. The defendants further pointed to an arbitration involving the American Guild of Musical Artists and the Metropolitan Opera and said they would rely on claim-preclusion and issue-preclusion doctrines in their motion to dismiss.

The opinion text does not include a substantive ruling on those arguments or on the planned motion to dismiss. It presents the defendants’ request and the court’s brief ruling on the discovery stay.

Ruling

The court denied the defendants’ request. It stated: “Defendants have not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting a stay.” The court added that, to the extent the defendants sought more time to produce discovery, they had to make a separate application. The order therefore addressed the requested discovery stay, not the merits of Netrebko’s claims or the anticipated motion to dismiss.