Order | Filed: August 20, 2026
| Entered: August 20, 2026
1970 Group, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company
Personal Property: Other | New York Southern
Memo Endorsement
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 20 Letter filed by 1970 Group, Inc. ENDORSEMENT: After considering the parties' respective positions, Defendant's request to stay discovery is GRANTED IN PART andDENIED IN PART for the reasons below. Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to stay discovery "for good cause shown," and the party seeking the stay bears the burden of making that showing. Guralnick v. Too Lost LLC, 26-CV-01832 (JHR) (RFT), 2026 WL 2333558, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2026) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, and discovery should not be routinely stayed simply on the basis that a motion to dismiss has been filed." Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC v. Alliant Ins. Servs., Inc., 25-CV-01260 (JAV), 2025 WL 1616872, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2025) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In deciding whether good cause exists, courts consider "the breadth of the discovery being sought and the burden of responding to the discovery requests, the strength of the motion to dismiss, and the prejudice to the party opposing the stay." Guralnick, 2026 WL 2333558, at *1. Those factors favor a limited stay. The first factorthe scope of discovery and burden of respondingdoes not justify a complete stay. The case is at an early stage, and the parties have not yet exchanged discovery requests, so the precise scope of discovery is uncertain. But this insurance dispute appears likely to involve a manageable amount of document discovery. Defendant's assertion that discovery will be burdensome is, at this point, largely generalized. (ECF No. 20 at 3). That is insufficient to warrant a complete stay. See Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC, 2025 WL 1616872, at *1 (denying stay of discovery because party's argument that discovery "'may' be broad, costly, and time consuming [wa]s unavailing"); but see Press v. Primavera, 1:21- cv-10971 (JLR), 2022 WL 17736916, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2022) (finding stay justified because case involved "significant document discovery, several depositions, and third-party discovery from the SEC related to its investigation"). A limited stay further reduces any burden. The parties may exchange written discovery while deferring depositions, which generally require greater expenditures of time and resources. And Defendant itself recognizes that resolution of its motion may lead to an amended complaint rather than end the litigation. (ECF No. 20 at 2). Written discovery therefore may remain useful even if the present Complaint is dismissed. This factor weighs against a complete stay and favors allowing written discovery to proceed while postponing depositions. The second factorthe strength of Defendant's motionat most slightly favors a stay. If the underlying motion is not unfounded in the law, this weighs in favor of a stay." Richardson v. City of New York, 21-CV-5080 (PAE) (KHP), 2022 WL 2003340, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022). And to be founded in the law, the movant's motion need only provide "substantial arguments for dismissal of many, if not all, of the claims asserted" that are "supported by case law from courts in this Circuit." Guralnick, 2026 WL 2333558, at *1 (finding strength of movant's motion weighed in favor of stay because arguments made for dismissal were well supported). Defendant's motion presents substantial arguments, supported by authority from this Circuit, that could dispose of the entire action if accepted. That satisfies Defendant's burden on this factor. Id. (granting stay after finding second factor satisfied). This factor thus provides some support for conserving resources pending resolution of the motion, particularly as to depositions. The third factorthe prejudice to Plaintiffalso favors a limited stay. Because the case is still in its early stages, postponing depositions will cause little prejudice. Plaintiff may meanwhile obtain written discovery, including the documents it contends are needed to investigate factual issues bearing on the parties' dispute. And resolution of the motion to dismiss may clarify or narrow the claims and, in turn, the proper scope of deposition discovery. Under these circumstances, the prejudice from postponing depositions is minimal. Balancing these considerations, a complete stay is not warranted, but neither is unrestricted discovery. Accordingly, by September 4th, the parties shall conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and submit a proposed Civil Case Management Plan that provides for the exchange of written discovery while Defendant's motion to dismiss remains pending. Written discovery may proceed, but depositions are STAYED until the Court resolves Defendant's motion to dismiss. The parties may use the template form available on Judge Clarke's chambers page or contact the undersigned at ReznikNY... (truncated)