Lian v. Tuya Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-06792
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Lian v. Tuya Inc., Judge Tarnofsky held that a pending pleadings motion stayed discovery under the securities-litigation statute and set a later schedule.
Xiaomeng Lian, Tuya Inc., the other Defendants, and the putative class were affected because discovery was stayed while the Rule 12(c) motion remained pending, subject to a possible request for particularized discovery.
What happened
In Lian v. Tuya Inc., the parties disagreed about whether discovery should begin while Defendants’ pending motion for judgment on the pleadings was unresolved. Defendants argued that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act automatically stayed discovery; Plaintiffs argued that the stay’s purpose had already been satisfied because Judge Cronan had largely denied an earlier motion to dismiss.
The court ruled that the pending motion under Rule 12(c) triggers the Act’s automatic discovery stay. It rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the motion was filed only to delay the case and explained that the stay can be lifted if particularized discovery is needed to preserve evidence or prevent unfair harm.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky also set a schedule to apply if claims remain after the motion is decided. That schedule covers fact and expert discovery, joining parties, class certification, monthly discovery reports, and later settlement and summary-judgment scheduling.
The detailed version
- Lian v. Tuya Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06792
- John Cronan
- May 2, 2024
Background
Xiaomeng Lian brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Tuya Inc. and other Defendants. The parties submitted competing proposed deadlines in a report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Defendants had filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), which, if granted in full, would dismiss the entire case against all Defendants.
Defendants argued that the pending Rule 12(c) motion triggered the automatic discovery stay in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which provides that discovery and other proceedings generally must be stayed while a motion to dismiss is pending. Plaintiffs argued that the statutory purpose had already been served because Judge Cronan had largely denied an earlier motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs also argued that Defendants filed the new motion to delay discovery.
Ruling
Judge Tarnofsky concluded that the pending Rule 12(c) motion triggers the Act’s automatic discovery stay. The court found persuasive decisions treating a Rule 12(c) motion like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for purposes of the stay. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ delay argument, noting that the pending motion presented legal arguments not previously considered and that Judge Cronan had granted Defendants permission to file it.
The court explained that the stay may be lifted if a party asks for particularized discovery that is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent undue prejudice. The opinion does not decide the pending Rule 12(c) motion or the merits of the claims.
Schedule if Claims Remain
If claims remain after the Rule 12(c) decision, the court ordered that:
- Fact discovery must be completed within 14 months after the decision, and all remaining discovery within 18 months. - Depositions must be completed within 14 months, with the parties required to confer about deposition limits within 30 days after the decision. - Initial interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production may not be served before the decision. Document production must be substantially complete within eight months after the decision. - All parties must be joined no later than 120 days before the close of fact discovery. - Expert discovery must be completed within 18 months after the decision. - The class-certification motion is due six months after the decision; Defendants’ opposition is due 60 days later, and Plaintiffs’ reply is due 60 days after the opposition. - The parties must file joint monthly discovery reports beginning 60 days after the decision and must file a joint letter one week after the discovery deadline addressing completion of discovery, settlement or mediation, and a proposed summary-judgment briefing schedule.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.