Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Katzoff
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-09691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Asset Co IM Rest v. Katzoff, Judge Cronan denied defendants’ request to pause discovery while they pursued anticipated motions to dismiss.
The ruling directly affected the defendants’ request to pause discovery and allowed discovery to continue in the case.
What happened
In Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Katzoff, the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while they prepared motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs opposed that request.
Judge Cronan said courts may pause discovery for good cause, but the defendants had to show that a pause was justified. The court noted that it had previously found a likelihood of success on the merits for claims involving the Il Mulino Tribeca trade dress, and the defendants had not shown that their anticipated motions would end the entire case. The defendants also did not identify specific evidence that discovery would be overly burdensome.
Judge Cronan denied the defendants’ motion for a discovery stay and directed the clerk to close docket number 86.
The detailed version
- Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Katzoff · No. 1:23-cv-09691
- John Cronan
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
The defendants requested a discovery stay, meaning an order temporarily pausing the exchange of information in the lawsuit, while they pursued anticipated motions to dismiss. The court reviewed the defendants’ letter at docket number 86 and the plaintiffs’ response at docket number 89.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery when the party requesting the stay shows good cause. Courts evaluating a requested stay pending a motion to dismiss typically consider: (1) whether the defendants have made a strong showing that the plaintiff’s claims lack merit; (2) the scope of discovery and the burden of responding; and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay. The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing that it is warranted.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that it would not prejudge the merits of the defendants’ anticipated dismissal motions. It nevertheless noted that it had already found a likelihood of success on the merits concerning the plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claims related to the Il Mulino Tribeca trade dress. The court also observed that the defendants appeared to seek dismissal of claims or possibly entire parties, rather than claiming that their motions would dispose of the entire case.
The defendants objected to the breadth of discovery, but identified only one specific discovery request and otherwise referred generally to the plaintiffs’ “similarly expansive requests.” The court said the defendants could object to the identified request through the ordinary discovery process and had not provided a specific indicator showing why discovery would be overly burdensome. The court concluded that these considerations did not support a stay, even assuming the plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion for a discovery stay. It directed the clerk to close docket number 86.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.