Magee v. The Walt Disney Company

Filing 34

ORDER: 1. No later than June 5, 2020, Defendants shall file their reply, if any, with respect to their pending motion to stay; 2. No later than June 5, 2020, Defendants shall file their motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). 3. No later than June 19, 2020, Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. 4. No later than June 26, 2020, Defendants shall file their reply, if any, with respect to their motion for judgment on the pleadings. SO ORDERED. (Motions due by 6/5/2020. Responses due by 6/19/2020, Replies due by 6/26/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 5/21/2020) (js)

Case 1:19-cv-10274-AJN-SDA Document 34 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
5/21/2020

Quincy Magee,
Plaintiff,
-against-

1:19-cv-10274 (AJN) (SDA)
ORDER

The Walt Disney Company, et al.,
Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:
On May 12, 2020, Defendants filed a memorandum of law in support of their motion to
stay discovery. (Defs.’ Mem., ECF No. 28.) Although his response to Defendants’ motion to stay
was not due to be filed until June 11, 2020 (see 4/28/20 Order, ECF No. 20), Plaintiff filed his
response to the motion to stay on May 14, 2020. (Pl.’s Response, ECF No. 31.) In order to expedite
the disposition of Defendants’ motion, the Court hereby accelerates the time for Defendants’
time to reply. Amending its 4/28/20 Order, Defendants’ reply, if any, with respect to their motion
to stay, shall be filed no later than June 5, 2020.
Defendants state that their motion to stay is premised on their anticipated motion to
dismiss. (See Defs.’ Mem. at 2 (indicating that Defendants are seeking stay “pending the outcome
of a motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”) 1 Defendants argue that their
“motion to dismiss has not yet been briefed and thus, any attempt to weigh the merits of the

Since Defendants already have filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, they actually will be filing a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). In deciding a motion under Rule
12(c), a court employs the same standard applicable to motions under Rule 12(b)(6). See L-7 Designs, Inc.
v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 429 (2d Cir. 2011)
1

Case 1:19-cv-10274-AJN-SDA Document 34 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 2

motion would be premature.” (Id. at 4.) Yet, under applicable law, one of the factors the Court
must consider in determining whether to grant a motion to stay discovery is “the strength of the
pending motion forming the basis of the request for stay.” Republic of Turkey v. Christie’s, Inc.,
316 F. Supp. 3d 675, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (citation omitted). Thus, it is not “premature” to weigh
the merits of Defendants’ anticipated motion, but it is essential to do so. Accordingly, Defendants
shall file their motion for judgment on the pleadings no later than June 5, 2020.
By reason of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, as follows:
1. No later than June 5, 2020, Defendants’ shall file their reply, if any, with respect to
their pending motion to stay;
2. No later than June 5, 2020, Defendants shall file their motion for judgment on the
pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
3. No later than June 19, 2020, Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendants’ motion
for judgment on the pleadings.
4. No later than June 26, 2020, Defendants shall file their reply, if any, with respect to
their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:

New York, New York
May 21, 2020
______________________________
STEWART D. AARON
United States Magistrate Judge

2