Sigma Lithium Corporation v. Gardner et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting 43 Motion to Stay re: 43 LETTER MOTION to Stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss addressed to Judge Dale E. Ho from Mark E. McDonald dated May 10, 2024. It is hereby ORDERED th at Defendants' request for a stay of discovery pending resolution of their motion is GRANTED. District courts may stay discovery during the pendency of a motion to dismiss "for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). As further set for th in this Order. It is hereby ORDERED that the initial pretrial conference is ADJOURNED, pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 43. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 6/4/2024) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SIGMA LITHIUM CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

23-CV-7403 (DEH)
ORDER

CALVYN GARDNER, et al.,
Defendants.
DALE E. HO, United States District Judge:

On May 2, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See ECF No. 36. An order issued on May 3, 2024,
adjourned the initial pretrial conference in this matter to June 7, 2024. See ECF No. 42. On May
10, 2024, Defendants filed a letter motion seeking a stay of discovery pending resolution of their
motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 43. On May 24, 2024, the parties filed a joint status letter and
proposed case management plan, in the event that Defendants’ motion to stay discovery would
not be granted, pursuant to the May 3 order. See ECF No. 60.
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ request for a stay of discovery pending
resolution of their motion is GRANTED. District courts may stay discovery during the
pendency of a motion to dismiss “for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “In deciding whether
to grant a stay, a court should consider the breadth of discovery sought and the burden of
responding to it, as well as the strength of the underlying motion.” Boelter v. Hearst Comm’ns
Inc., No. 15 Civ. 3934, 2016 WL 361554, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2016) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Although the Court does not predict the outcome of Defendants’ motion, an
initial review of the arguments presented in support suggest that the motion is not frivolous. It
also is noteworthy that the arguments in favor of dismissal—the alleged lack of personal
jurisdiction and the doctrine of forum non conveniens—raise threshold issues about where this

case will be litigated, supporting a stay. See Renois v. WVMF Funding, LLC, No. 20 Civ. 9281,
2021 WL 1721818, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2021) (finding that a stay pending resolution of a
jurisdictional motion to dismiss was appropriate, but not one based on failure to state a claim or
venue, because jurisdiction was a case-dispositive threshold issue). The motion, if meritorious,
also points to an alternate forum in Brazil, which has discovery rules which likely differ
materially from those applicable in this District. This counsels in favor of waiting until the
motion is decided before compelling the parties to engage in liberal U.S.-style discovery. See Lu
v. Cheer Holding, Inc., No. 24 Civ. 459, 2023 WL 1718821, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2024). It
also makes the burden of responding to discovery potentially disproportionate, if the case will be
ultimately litigated in a forum with more limited discovery. Finally, Plaintiff does not articulate
any prejudice that will result from further delaying discovery pending resolution of Defendants’
motion to dismiss, referring only in a conclusory fashion to the ongoing injury due to delay and
Defendants’ alleged use of Plaintiff’s confidential information. This does not provide a
compelling argument regarding specific harm from waiting for the adjudication of Defendants’
motion, which is already fully briefed.
It is hereby ORDERED that the initial pretrial conference is ADJOURNED, pending
resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 43.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2024
New York, New York

DALE E. HO
United States District Judge

2