Go Global Retail, LLC v. Dream On Me, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-07987
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Go Global v. Dream On Me, Judge Subramanian ordered Defendants to proceed with discovery despite their pending motion to dismiss.
Go Global Retail, LLC and Defendants Dream On Me Industries, Inc. and Dream On Me, Inc.; the ruling requires Defendants to proceed with discovery while their motion to dismiss is pending.
What happened
Go Global Retail asked the court to require Dream On Me Industries and Dream On Me to answer discovery requests and produce documents. The parties’ schedule required written discovery responses by April 1, 2024, but Defendants said they would wait until 30 days after the court decided their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Go Global argued that Defendants could not pause discovery on their own because the court had not stayed or extended the discovery schedule. Go Global also said the delay could interfere with its efforts to investigate Defendants’ alleged use of its trade-secret information.
The court ruled that the case was not stayed and that Defendants had to proceed with discovery; it said they were not entitled to impose a stay themselves. Judge Arun Subramanian allowed the parties to submit additional letters if disputes continued about specific deadlines or the scope of discovery.
The detailed version
- Go Global Retail, LLC v. Dream On Me, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07987
- Subramanian
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
Go Global filed this action and later filed an amended complaint after Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint. Defendants then moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and that motion was fully briefed when this discovery dispute arose. The opinion does not state how the motion to dismiss was ultimately resolved.
The court’s scheduling order required the parties to serve their first document-production requests and interrogatories by February 15, 2024. Go Global served its requests on February 15. Defendants served their requests on February 29. The parties agreed that written responses would be exchanged by April 1, 2024.
Defendants later asked to pause discovery until the court ruled on the motion to dismiss. During meet-and-confer discussions on April 1 and April 4, Defendants stated that they would not provide written discovery responses or produce documents until 30 days after the court issued an order on the motion to dismiss. Go Global then sought an order requiring Defendants to respond and begin producing documents.
Issue
The dispute concerned whether Defendants could delay discovery merely because their motion to dismiss was pending. Go Global argued that no court-ordered stay or extension existed and that Defendants had improperly changed the scheduling order on their own. Go Global also alleged that Defendants had retained and used its trade-secret information, making timely discovery important to its investigation. Those allegations were not decided in this discovery order.
Ruling
The court stated: “This case is not stayed pending the decision on the motion to dismiss. Defendants must proceed with discovery accordingly and are not entitled to self-help.” The court added that the parties could submit additional letters if disputes continued over particular deadlines or the scope of discovery.
The order does not expressly state that Go Global’s discovery motion was “granted” or “denied.” It does expressly require Defendants to proceed with discovery and rejects their unilateral delay. Judge Arun Subramanian did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the underlying trade-secret dispute in this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.