Vuppala v. Land of Buddha, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-09044
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vuppala v. Land of Buddha, Judge Clarke denied Land of Buddha’s motion to stay discovery pending its anticipated motion to dismiss.
The ruling keeps discovery moving for the plaintiff and Land of Buddha, Inc.; it does not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
What happened
In Vuppala v. Land of Buddha, Inc., Land of Buddha asked the court to pause discovery while it pursued a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The parties submitted a joint request for a conference about the proposed discovery stay.
Land of Buddha argued that its motion to dismiss was strong, responding to discovery would be substantially burdensome, and the plaintiff would not be harmed because Land of Buddha was the only defendant to appear. The plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing that it would cause delay and unfair prejudice while the facility remained inaccessible and allegedly discriminated against disabled people. The plaintiff also described alleged delays in receiving deposition dates and responses to discovery requests.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the motion for a stay because at least part of the plaintiff’s claim was likely to survive the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff could be prejudiced by a stay, and Land of Buddha had not shown that a stay would cause harm. The case management plan remains in effect, and the clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 58.
The detailed version
- Vuppala v. Land of Buddha, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09044
- Clarke
- Apr. 8, 2024
Background
Land of Buddha, Inc. requested a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to stay discovery while its motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint was pending. The request was submitted by letter under the court’s local rules. The parties had conferred, but the plaintiff opposed the proposed stay.
Arguments
Land of Buddha stated that it intended to show that its motion to dismiss made a strong case that the plaintiff’s claims lacked merit, that responding to discovery would impose a substantial burden, and that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced because Land of Buddha was the only defendant to appear in the case.
The plaintiff argued that dismissal was unlikely, that the complaint had recently been amended, and that pausing discovery would cause unnecessary delay and unfair prejudice. The plaintiff also asserted that Land of Buddha’s counsel had not provided deposition dates and had delayed acknowledging interrogatories and document requests. The plaintiff’s discovery responses were stated to be due on April 20, and a deposition had been noticed for April 12.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the motion for a stay of discovery. The court gave three reasons: at least part of the plaintiff’s claim was likely to survive the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff could be prejudiced by a stay, and Land of Buddha had failed to show harm from continuing discovery. The case management plan remained in effect, and the clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 58. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.