City of Ouro Preto v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-08139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In City of Ouro Preto v. Merrill Lynch, Judge Cronan granted the parties’ request to stay discovery pending defendants’ forum non conveniens motion.
The stay affects the parties to City of Ouro Preto v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., including the plaintiff and the defendants, by pausing discovery while defendants’ forthcoming forum non conveniens motion is pending.
What happened
City of Ouro Preto and the defendants jointly asked the court to pause discovery while the defendants prepared a motion arguing that another forum was more appropriate for the case. They said deciding that threshold issue first could affect whether the case stayed in this court and what discovery would be needed.
The parties asked to preserve the possibility of seeking permission for limited discovery about issues related to that motion. The opinion does not decide the forum non conveniens issue or any underlying claims.
Judge Cronan granted the request and stayed discovery pending resolution of the defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
The detailed version
- City of Ouro Preto v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08139
- John Cronan
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
The parties submitted a joint request for a formal stay of discovery. The request concerned defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, a doctrine under which a court may dismiss or redirect a case when another forum is considered more appropriate. The parties stated that resolving that issue first could eliminate issues for this court or affect the scope of discovery.
The letter also stated that, if necessary, a party could seek permission to conduct discovery limited to issues related to forum non conveniens. The parties reserved their positions on any such request.
Ruling
The court granted the request. Discovery in this case is stayed pending resolution of defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The order does not resolve that motion or decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.