Meng v. William Carey University, 2:24-cv-00199

Plaintiff Brandon Meng, a former medical student at William Carey University, sued the university, its dean, and a professor, alleging wrongful discipline that deprived him of a medical career.
Meng's original complaint included claims under Title VI, breach of contract (including student handbook and good faith), malicious interference, ethnic discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and accreditation violations.
After initial motions to dismiss and to stay discovery by defendants, Meng filed an amended complaint adding claims under the Rehabilitation Act and defamation.
Defendants renewed their motions to dismiss all claims and sought a stay on discovery pending the court’s ruling on these motions.
No answers or responsive pleadings have yet been filed by defendants, so discovery had not commenced (per federal rules and local practice).
The court considered whether a formal stay of discovery was necessary or if the procedural posture already delayed discovery by default.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stay of Discovery Pending Motion to Dismiss	Discovery should proceed; no prejudice from pending motions	Discovery should be stayed pending ruling on the motions to dismiss	No formal stay entered; discovery already delayed by rules until motions resolved
Need for Responsive Pleading to Start Discovery	Implied discovery can commence	Discovery premature without answers	Discovery cannot commence until after ruling on motions to dismiss and answer filed
Prejudice from Delay of Discovery	Delay would prejudice plaintiff	No prejudice—limited impact	No demonstrated prejudice to plaintiff from short delay
Scope of Litigation without Responsive Pleading	Issues are clear from complaint	Scope is unclear without answers	Scope of discovery cannot be set prior to answers; delay appropriate