Romano v. AC360 Media, LLC et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Letter Motion to Stay re: 49 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Stay re: 43 Order,, for leave to move to stay discovery addressed to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang from Steven G. Mintz dated M ay 7, 2021., 50 LETTER MOTION to Stay discovery per letter application addressed to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang from Eric B. Sigda dated May 7, 2021. ; granting in part and denying in part 50 Letter Motion to Stay re: 49 FIRS T LETTER MOTION to Stay re: 43 Order,, for leave to move to stay discovery addressed to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang from Steven G. Mintz dated May 7, 2021., 50 LETTER MOTION to Stay discovery per letter application addressed to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang from Eric B. Sigda dated May 7, 2021. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' letter motions for a stay of discovery pending a decision on their pending motions to dismiss. (ECF 49, 50). Defendants A360 Media, LLC, f/k/a/ American Media, Inc., Eli Lippman, Spencer Cain (together, the "A360 Defendants") and Nadine DeNinno moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them in their entirety. (ECF 24, 28). For the reasons stated below, the motions to stay are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and further set forth in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close ECF 49 and 50. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 6/3/2021) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------x
BRITTANY ROMANO,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
AC360 Media, LLC et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------x

20-CV-8988 (LTS) (OTW)
ORDER

ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ letter motions for a stay of discovery pending a
decision on their pending motions to dismiss. (ECF 49, 50). Defendants A360 Media, LLC, f/k/a/
American Media, Inc., Eli Lippman, Spencer Cain (together, the “A360 Defendants”) and Nadine
DeNinno moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them in their entirety. (ECF 24, 28). For the
reasons stated below, the motions to stay are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
“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.” Hong Leong
Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). If a party
makes “a showing of good cause” the Court may, in its discretion, stay discovery. O’Sullivan v.
Deutsche Bank AG, No. 17-CV-8709 (LTS) (GWG), 2018 WL 1989585, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26,
2018); see also Spencer Trask Software & Info. Servs., LLC v. RPost Int’l Ltd., 206 F.R.D. 357, 368
(S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[B]ased on the papers submitted and upon oral argument from counsel, the
Court notes at this preliminary stage that defendants do appear to have substantial arguments
for dismissal of many, if not all, of the claims asserted in this lawsuit.”)

I. A360 Defendants
The A360 Defendants argue that there is good cause for a stay because: (1) Plaintiff’s
discovery demands are overly broad; (2) Plaintiff will not be prejudiced; (3) the motion to
dismiss has a high probability of being granted; and (4) even if the motion to dismiss is granted
in part, it “will narrow and necessarily shape the limited discovery that will be exchanged.” (ECF
50 at 2). Plaintiff opposes a stay.
I find that there is good cause for a limited stay against the A360 Defendants.
Accordingly, the A360 Defendants are directed to produce, by July 2, 2021, to the extent they
have not already: (1) Plaintiff’s personnel file; (2) documents and email communications
regarding Plaintiff’s ADHD; (3) documents and email communication’s regarding Plaintiff’s
termination; and (4) documents and email communications regarding Plaintiff’s EEOC
complaint. The custodians for the documents at this stage shall be limited to Plaintiff, the
named defendants, and one or more relevant human resources personnel. If the District Court
does not grant the A360 Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety, the limited stay shall be
lifted and Plaintiff is directed to serve revised discovery demands within 14 days of the District
Court’s order.
II. Defendant DeNinno
Ms. DeNinno, who no longer works at A360 Media, joins in the A360 Defendants’
arguments. (ECF 49 at 1-2). Plaintiff opposes a stay.
I also find there is a good cause for a limited stay against Ms. DeNinno. To the extent
Ms. DeNinno has any documents – in the above-mentioned categories relating solely to
Plaintiff’s employment at A360 Media not any prospective employment with the New York Post
2

– in her possession, custody, or control without regard to duplication of the A360 Defendants’
documents, she shall also produce them by July 2, 2021. If the District Court does not grant
Ms. DeNinno’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, the limited stay shall be lifted and Plaintiff is
directed to serve revised discovery demands within 14 days of the District Court’s order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close ECF 49 and 50.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Ona T. Wang
Ona T. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: June 3, 2021
New York, New York

3