Ferrari v. Forbes Media LLC, 1:25-cv-00012

Plaintiffs Adam D. Ferrari and Phoenix Capital Group Holdings, LLC sued Forbes Media LLC for defamation by implication, stemming from an October 2024 Forbes article alleging Phoenix's financing operations resembled a Ponzi scheme.
The case was originally filed in Delaware Superior Court, then removed to federal court by Forbes on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Forbes filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging the Article does not imply a Ponzi scheme, any such implication is opinion protected by the Constitution, and plaintiffs cannot show actual malice.
While the motion to dismiss was pending, Forbes separately moved to stay discovery, arguing a stay would simplify the case, avoid unnecessary costs, and cause no prejudice to plaintiffs.
Ferrari and Phoenix argued discovery was essential and that Forbes had not shown hardship warranting a stay.
Only minimal discovery had commenced; the trial had not yet been scheduled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should discovery be stayed pending motion to dismiss?	Stay should require good cause which Forbes lacks; delay prejudices plaintiffs and defamation claims need record development.	Stay would likely simplify the case, avoid waste if dismissal granted, and no undue prejudice would result.	Granted; all three factors favor stay.

Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2010) (citizenship of an LLC for diversity jurisdiction traces through all members)
Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2013) (burden is on removing party to establish subject matter jurisdiction)
Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) (damages are presumed adequate remedy for defamation)