Ophir v. Koneksa Health Inc

Background

Gol Ophir sued Koneksa Health Inc. and Christopher Benko. The complaint asserted age-discrimination claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law; an age-based unequal-pay claim under New York Labor Law section 194; and retaliation claims under New York Labor Law section 740 and the New York state and city human-rights laws.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint was insufficiently pleaded. They separately asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the court decided that motion. The defendants’ request stated that no discovery requests had yet been served and that discovery could impose a substantial burden, particularly because of Koneksa’s company records and communications.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery. Courts instead consider the circumstances of the case, including the expected scope and burden of discovery, possible prejudice from a delay, and the apparent strength of the motion to dismiss.

The court found that the first two factors favored Ophir because the case appeared likely to involve the ordinary discovery burdens of employment-discrimination litigation. The court also found that the prejudice factor slightly favored Ophir because delaying discovery could dim witnesses’ recollections. As to the motion’s strength, the court noted that the motion was not fully briefed, making its strength or weakness unclear. The court further noted that, even if the motion were granted, Ophir could seek permission to amend the complaint to address pleading deficiencies.

Ruling

Judge Dale E. Ho denied the defendants’ application to stay discovery. The court ordered the parties to work diligently to complete discovery by the previously ordered deadlines and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 18. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of Ophir’s claims.