Guo v. Yao
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-07486
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Guo v. Yao, Judge Torres granted in part a request to stay discovery against Gao and Leafire until May 21, 2024.
The order temporarily pauses discovery directed to Luyang Gao and Leafire, Inc., while requiring the plaintiff to respond to the stay request by May 9, 2024. The stay lasts until May 21, 2024.
What happened
Guo v. Yao concerns a request by defendants Luyang Gao and Leafire, Inc. to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending. The request followed discovery demands that plaintiffs served on Gao and Leafire.
Gao and Leafire argued that the discovery was broad and burdensome and that the court might dismiss them for lack of personal jurisdiction. They also argued that pausing discovery would not prejudice the plaintiffs because discovery could continue against other defendants.
Judge Analisa Torres granted in part the request. She required the plaintiff to respond to the letter motion by May 9, 2024, and stayed discovery as to Gao and Leafire until May 21, 2024.
The detailed version
- Guo v. Yao · No. 1:23-cv-07486
- Analisa Torres
- May 2, 2024
Background
Defendants Luyang Gao and Leafire, Inc. asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery directed to them while their motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was pending. The motion to dismiss included an argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Gao and Leafire, meaning that they argued they did not have sufficient legal connections to New York for the court to exercise authority over them.
The defendants said plaintiffs had served Gao and Leafire with document requests and interrogatories on April 25, 2024. They argued that the requests were expansive and burdensome, including more than 40 document requests and requests for tax returns, financial statements, and documents concerning each defendant’s net worth. They also argued that the pending personal-jurisdiction motion presented strong grounds for dismissal and that pausing discovery would avoid costs that might be wasted if the court dismissed Gao and Leafire.
The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced because they could continue seeking discovery from other defendants. The letter asked the court to stay discovery against Gao and Leafire until the court decided the motion to dismiss.
Court’s Order
The court marked the request GRANTED IN PART. It ordered the plaintiff to respond to the letter motion to stay discovery by May 9, 2024. It also ordered that discovery be stayed as to Gao and Leafire until May 21, 2024.
The order does not state what additional relief, if any, was denied. It did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or determine whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Gao or Leafire.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.