Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2024

Puller v. Legends OWO, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-00209
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Puller v. Legends OWO, Judge Abrams denied Legends OWO’s request to pause discovery while its dismissal motion is pending.

Who this affects

The ruling affects Daniel Puller and Legends OWO, LLC by leaving discovery unstayed while Legends OWO’s motion to dismiss remains pending; it does not decide the dismissal motion or the underlying claims.

What happened

Daniel Puller brought Puller v. Legends OWO, LLC individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. Legends OWO asked the court to pause discovery while it considered the company’s motion to dismiss.

Puller objected to the request, and Legends OWO replied. The court said that filing a dismissal motion alone does not justify pausing discovery; the party seeking a pause must show a good reason. The court considered the strength of the dismissal motion, the scope and burden of discovery, and possible harm to the opposing party.

The court denied Legends OWO’s motion to stay discovery. Judge Abrams also said the parties should inform the court if they later believe referral to a magistrate judge or mediation would help.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Puller v. Legends OWO, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-00209
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
May 2, 2024

Background

Daniel Puller sued Legends OWO, LLC individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On April 10, 2024, Legends OWO moved to stay, or pause, discovery while the court decided its motion to dismiss. Puller objected on April 19, and Legends OWO filed a reply on April 26.

Legal standard

The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically justify a discovery stay. The party seeking the stay must show “good cause.” In deciding whether good cause exists, the court considered the strength of the motion to dismiss, the amount of discovery requested, the burden of responding, and the possible prejudice to the party opposing the stay.

Ruling

After considering the parties’ written submissions and those factors, the court denied Legends OWO’s motion to stay discovery. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of Puller’s claims. The court added that the parties should inform it if they later conclude that referral to Magistrate Judge Netburn or mediation would be productive.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.