Anderson v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Background

Keesha Anderson sued Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Steve Boom, and Ryan Redington. The supplied text concerns the defendants’ request to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery while the court considered the defendants’ fully briefed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. Discovery had continued under a case-management order even though the motions were pending.

Defendants’ request

The defendants argued that a stay was appropriate because discovery would impose substantial costs. They said the Amazon defendants had collected data from five employees covering Anderson’s two-and-a-half-year period of employment, totaling 720,878 documents and 191.71 gigabytes. They also said Anderson had noticed four depositions, including depositions of Boom and Redington.

The defendants further argued that Anderson would not be prejudiced by a short stay because the motions were ready for decision. They asserted that the motions had multiple independent grounds for dismissal, including failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. They also argued that the motions could dispose of the entire action. In the letter, the defendants characterized Anderson’s theory of liability as “discrimination laundering” and argued that documents produced in discovery undermined her allegations of constructive discharge and her claimed entitlement to back pay and front pay. These were the defendants’ arguments; the supplied text does not show that the court ruled on them.

Ruling

Judge Arun Subramanian denied the request to stay discovery. The order states: “Because the Court perceives little prejudice to Defendants and this case has already been pending for seven months, the request is DENIED.” The supplied text does not state that the court decided the pending motions to dismiss, ruled on the alleged defects in Anderson’s complaint, or resolved the underlying claims.