Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 25, 2024

Abadi v. Apple, Inc.

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:23-cv-03367
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Abadi v. Apple, Judge Gardephe granted Apple’s request to pause all discovery while its motion to dismiss remained pending.

Who this affects

Aaron Abadi and Apple Inc.; all discovery in their case was paused while Apple’s motion to dismiss remained unresolved.

What happened

In Abadi v. Apple, Inc., Aaron Abadi sued Apple over being denied entry to an Apple store without a face mask. His complaint asserted six claims related to a September 2021 incident and alleged medical disability and objections to Apple’s pandemic mask requirements.

Apple asked the court to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending. Apple argued that discovery—especially expert discovery involving medical records and examinations—would be burdensome and unnecessary if the complaint were dismissed. The filing said Abadi had agreed to most of the requested pause.

The court granted the application and stayed all discovery until it resolved Apple’s motion to dismiss. Judge Paul Gardephe’s ruling did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Abadi v. Apple, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03367
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Jan. 25, 2024

Background

Aaron Abadi filed a complaint alleging six causes of action arising from a September 2021 incident in which he was denied entry to Apple World Trade Center without a face mask. The filing describes his claims as involving alleged medical disability and challenges to the necessity and wisdom of Apple’s mask requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties had already begun discovery. The case-management schedule set deadlines for document requests, depositions, nonparty subpoenas, expert reports, expert depositions, and completion of discovery. The filing states that initial written discovery was complete and that Apple had taken Abadi’s deposition on January 11, 2024.

Apple filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 21, 2023. On January 18, 2024, the court issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal of the complaint. The opinion text does not state that the report and recommendation had been adopted or that the motion to dismiss had been decided.

Request to Stay Discovery

Apple asked the court to stay all discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved. In the alternative, Apple requested a 60-day extension of the discovery deadlines. Apple argued that the motion to dismiss presented substantial grounds for dismissal, that expert discovery would be costly and time-consuming, and that Abadi would not suffer unfair prejudice from a temporary delay. Apple also stated that medical records had not been produced because Abadi did not want to provide the requested health-information authorizations, so Apple might need to subpoena those records.

Ruling

The court granted the application. All discovery in the matter was stayed pending resolution of Apple’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 22. Judge Paul Gardephe’s ruling addressed discovery only; it did not resolve the motion to dismiss or decide the merits of Abadi’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.