Pappas v. City of New York

Background

The City of New York moved to stay, or pause, discovery while the court decided the City’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) to compel discovery. The plaintiffs did not respond to the City’s motion to stay discovery.

The City’s motion to dismiss argues that the court lacks jurisdiction because collective bargaining agreements appear to require the parties to arbitrate. The court noted that granting that motion could resolve the entire case in federal court. The City also argued that discovery would be substantial because it would involve personnel and timekeeping records for 11 New York Police Department sergeants and lieutenants over several years.

Court’s Analysis

A court may stay discovery for good cause while a motion to dismiss is pending. The court considered the scope and burden of the discovery, possible prejudice from delaying or allowing it, and the strength of the motion to dismiss.

The court found good cause for a stay. The case was filed in July 2023 and was not old. The plaintiffs identified no harm from a brief delay and made no showing of prejudice. By contrast, the City could be prejudiced if the dispute ultimately belonged in arbitration, because the benefits of arbitration could be lost if extensive federal-court discovery occurred first.

Ruling

The motion to stay discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss was granted. The plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery was denied without prejudice.

The parties were ordered to write to the court requesting a status conference and to submit a revised case-management plan within fourteen days of any decision on the motion to dismiss that would permit the case to proceed in federal court. The opinion did not decide the motion to dismiss or whether the dispute must be arbitrated.