Cano v. City of New York
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-03733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cano v. City of New York, Judge Subramanian granted the City’s request to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending.
The plaintiff and the defendants in Cano v. City of New York; discovery deadlines and activities were paused while the City’s motion to dismiss remained pending.
What happened
Cano v. City of New York involved the City’s request to pause discovery while the City’s motion to dismiss the complaint was being considered. The opinion does not decide whether the complaint should be dismissed.
The City argued that discovery could be burdensome and might be unnecessary if its motion to dismiss succeeded. It also said the pause would give the plaintiff more time to respond to that motion. The plaintiff was representing herself.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the defendant’s motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The order stayed discovery pending the court’s decision on the City’s motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Cano v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-03733
- Subramanian
- Dec. 1, 2023
Background
The City of New York asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the City’s motion to dismiss the complaint was pending. Discovery had been scheduled to finish by March 26, 2024, and the defendants’ nearest deadline was November 30, 2023, for serving document requests and interrogatories.
The City argued that its motion to dismiss presented several grounds for dismissal, including that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy for any loss of property, had not adequately alleged municipal liability or the personal involvement of individual defendants, and had not satisfied certain requirements for her state-law claims. The City also argued that discovery could be burdensome because of the plaintiff’s extensive Department of Correction records and that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a temporary pause.
Ruling
The order states: “Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.” The court therefore granted the City’s request to stay discovery until the court ruled on the City’s motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 45.
This order addressed discovery management only. It did not rule on the City’s motion to dismiss or decide the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.