Ophir v. Koneksa Health Inc, 1:23-cv-09145

Plaintiff Gol Ophir filed a complaint against Koneksa Health Inc. and Christopher Benko alleging age discrimination, unequal pay, and retaliation under federal, state, and city law.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claims were inadequately pled.
Defendants requested a stay of discovery pending the outcome of their motion to dismiss, contending it would avoid unnecessary burden and expense.
No discovery requests had yet been served by either party at the time of the request.
The action had only been pending for about two months, with discovery deadlines already set by the court.
The court denied the defendants' request to stay discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stay of Discovery	Discovery should proceed as scheduled	Stay necessary to avoid burdensome, premature discovery on weak claims	Denied; standard discovery burden
Strength of Motion to Dismiss	Not directly addressed	Motion likely to narrow or eliminate claims, making stay efficient	Motion not fully briefed; unclear
Prejudice from Delay	Delay harms plaintiff's ability to secure evidence	No prejudice since discovery requests not yet served and early in litigation	Slightly favors plaintiff
Discovery Burden	Standard employment discovery, not unduly burdensome	Discovery would be substantial, especially for corporate defendant	Standard, thus not exceptional

Republic of Turkey v. Christie’s, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 3d 675 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (outlines factors for granting a stay of discovery pending motion to dismiss)
Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (discusses court's discretion to stay discovery for good cause)