Barrett v. The Arena Group Holdings, Inc.

Background

The court held an initial pretrial conference on May 7, 2024. It ordered Plaintiff to file a letter-motion seeking permission to amend the complaint by May 10, 2024. Plaintiff also had to attach a redline showing the differences between the operative complaint and the proposed amended complaint. Defendants were ordered to file a joint response by May 17, 2024, stating whether they consented to or opposed the motion and whether, if amendment were allowed, they would rely on their existing motions to dismiss or file new ones.

Discovery Stay

Defendants requested a stay, meaning a temporary pause, of discovery while their partial motions to dismiss were pending. The court held that district courts have broad discretion to manage pretrial discovery and should consider the circumstances of the case, including the scope and burden of discovery, possible prejudice, and the strength of the motion supporting the requested stay.

The court found that Defendants’ partial motions to dismiss focused primarily on the defamation claim. Because the parties acknowledged that some discovery would be necessary, the court found no basis to stop all discovery. It concluded that discovery specific to the defamation claim, including discovery involving claim-specific witnesses, did not need to proceed before the court decided the motions to dismiss. The court also found that Plaintiff had not shown he would be prejudiced by waiting to take defamation-related discovery if that claim survived the motions.

Ruling

The court’s order granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ request for a stay of discovery. Discovery related to the defamation claim was stayed. Discovery related to all other claims was to proceed under the case management plan and scheduling order, which the court said would be issued separately. The order did not resolve the partial motions to dismiss or decide the merits of any claim.