Response | Filed: June 22, 2026
| Entered: June 22, 2026
The City Of Rochester v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al
Other Statutory Actions | New York Western
Reply to Response to Motion
REPLY to Response to Motion re 176 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Glock, Inc., Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., Taurus Holdings, Inc.,. (Dick, Anthony)
Order | Filed: June 18, 2026
| Entered: June 18, 2026
Kelley v. Carberry et al
Other Fraud | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Stay
ORDER. Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery 34 is hereby granted.
"[A] request for a stay of discovery, pursuant to Rule 26(c) is committed to the sound discretion of the court based on a showing of good cause." Stanley Works Israel Ltd. v. 500 Grp., Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01765 (CSH), 2018 WL 1960112, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of demonstrating good cause. Id. The filing of a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, but a court may nevertheless find good cause for a stay upon considering three factors: "(1) the strength of the dispositive motion; (2) the breadth of the discovery sought," including the burden of responding to discovery; and (3) "the prejudice a stay would have on the non-moving party." Metzner v. Quinnipiac Univ., No. 3:20-cv-784 (KAD), 2020 WL 7232551, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 12, 2020).
The first factor, the strength of Defendants' motion to dismiss, counsels in favor of a stay. Defendants' Memorandum in support of the Motion to Dismiss 33 raises a number of independent grounds for dismissing the entire First Amended Complaint ("FAC") or individual portions of it, including that the FAC's allegations do not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 9, that the entire action is barred by the statute of limitations, and that the FAC contains various other claim-specific defects. The court notes that the FAC, including all exhibits, is nearly 600 pages long. Plaintiff argues that this lengthy document contains ample factual allegations to deny each aspect of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 44 , at 7. The district courts in this Circuit have differed somewhat in applying this first factor. Compare Boost Oxygen LLC v. Rocket Oxygen, No. 3:16-cv-01992 (VLB), 2017 WL 10768482, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 21, 2017) ("[A] discovery stay may be appropriate... where the pending dispositive motion articulates 'substantial grounds' or 'do[es] not appear to be without foundation in the law.'") with Stanley Works Israel Ltd., 2018 WL 1960112, at *3 (stating that "courts will look to see whether there are 'substantial arguments for dismissal,' or, stated differently, whether 'there has been a strong showing that the plaintiff's claim is unmeritorious'") (citation omitted). Nonetheless, "these varied articulations for assessing the 'merits' factor are not so different as to counsel alternative outcomes in most cases." Metzner, 2020 WL 7232551, at *3 n.2. Here, the court finds that Defendants have presented sufficiently substantial arguments for dismissal to weigh in favor of a stay while the court considers that submission in full.
The second factor, the breadth and burden of discovery sought, favors a stay. Defendants argue that a stay is warranted based on the scope of Plaintiff's proposed discovery requests in the 26(f) Report. ECF No. 35 , at 10. Plaintiff counters that "no discovery requests have yet been made by Plaintiff" and thus Defendants' argument is premature. ECF No. 44 , at 11. The Rule 26(f) report suggests that Plaintiff is likely to request a broad array of documents from the past decade. While Defendant is right that other mechanisms exist to adjudicate the breadth of discovery requests, ECF No. 44 , at 11-12, the likelihood that the scope of litigation may be narrowed by a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss counsels in favor of a stay to help prevent unnecessary discovery.
The third factor, prejudice to the non-moving party, also favors a stay. Plaintiff argues that granting a stay would result in a long delay, and suggests that "the availability of witnesses, fading memories, and the deterioration of evidence" would be a heavy burden against him. ECF No. 44 , at 12. But these are risks inherent in all litigation, especially lengthy federal litigation. Moreover, "the passage of a reasonable amount of time... (truncated)