Akoma v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-10181
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Akoma v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Judge Broderick denied without prejudice Defendants’ request to pause discovery.
The ruling affects Defendants’ request to pause discovery and Plaintiff Okechukwu Akoma, because discovery deadlines were not stayed at this time. Defendants may refile the request after filing their motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Akoma v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Defendants asked the court to pause all discovery-related deadlines, including required information exchanges, while the court considered their planned motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiff Okechukwu Akoma agreed to the pause but disagreed with Defendants’ description of the planned motion.
The court found the request premature because Defendants had not yet filed their motion to dismiss. The court therefore did not decide whether discovery should be paused based on the anticipated motion or whether the motion to dismiss had merit.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the request without prejudice, meaning Defendants may file it again after filing their motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close the pending request.
The detailed version
- Akoma v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-10181
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Defendants are identified as the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, doing business as NYC Health + Hospitals, and the Bellevue Hospistal Center Catheter Lab. They asked the court to stay, or pause, all discovery-related deadlines, including the parties’ required disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, while the court considered Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Under a prior court-approved agreement, Defendants were required to file that motion by April 26, 2024.
Plaintiff Okechukwu Akoma consented to the requested stay but disagreed with Defendants’ characterization of their anticipated motion as having substantial grounds. Defendants argued that the motion could potentially dispose of the case and that discovery had not yet begun.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that Defendants had not yet filed their motion to dismiss. Because the motion was only anticipated, the request to stay discovery was premature. The court therefore did not address the merits of the anticipated motion to dismiss or decide whether a stay would ultimately be justified after that motion was filed.
Disposition
The court denied the request to stay discovery without prejudice to refiling after Defendants file their motion to dismiss. The clerk was respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry 32. This order addressed only the timing of the discovery request; it did not decide the claims or the anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.