Elisa W. v. The City Of New York, 1:15-cv-05273

This is a class action brought by plaintiffs against the City and State of New York over alleged systemic violations of statutory and constitutional rights of foster children in the New York City system (via ACS and OCFS agencies).
The lawsuit has been pending for over nine years, with plaintiffs alleging children continue to be harmed by practices that retraumatize already vulnerable children.
Plaintiffs assert ongoing violations and seek classwide relief, including the renewal of class certification and discovery of systemwide policies.
The City and State defendants moved to stay discovery, citing both a pending motion for reconsideration and potential addition of new named plaintiff children.
Plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing it would prejudice the class, given case delays and the need to preserve witness memories and evidence.
Judge Kimba M. Wood denied the motion to stay, ordered the parties to commence full merits discovery (including priority requests), and required a joint report on progress and the discovery schedule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stay pending motion for reconsideration	Discovery should not be routinely stayed due to dispositive motions; delay harms plaintiffs	Stay is warranted until court resolves reconsideration motion	Denied—discovery not ordinarily stayed absent strong showing; prejudice to plaintiffs significant
Prejudice to Plaintiffs	Delay in discovery harms vulnerable foster child class; risk of lost evidence and faded memories	No specific argument shown on lack of prejudice	Denied—Defendants failed to show no prejudice to plaintiffs
Burden of Discovery	Requested discovery is reasonable and not unduly burdensome; initial priority items are low-burden	Implicit argument that discovery could be burdensome, but no detail provided	Denied—No showing of undue burden or disproportionate scope
Stay for adding new named plaintiff children	No obligation to add new named plaintiffs, classwide discovery is the focus	Discovery should be stayed until new children are added	Denied—identity of new named plaintiffs does not justify delaying classwide discovery

Cho v. BlackBerry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2021) (standard for granting motion for reconsideration is strict and requires showing the court overlooked controlling decisions or critical facts)
Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., 935 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2019) (reconsideration requires showing decisive overlooked facts or law)
Morien v. Munich Reinsurance Am. Inc., 270 F.R.D. 65 (D. Conn. 2010) (party seeking discovery stay bears burden of showing good cause)