Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Cuomo

1

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW CUOMO, both individually and in his official capacity; MARIA T. VULLO, both individually and in her official capacity; and THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendants.

No. 1:18-CV-0566

United States District Court, N.D. New York

September 15, 2023

DECISION AND ORDER

THOMAS J. MCAVOY, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff National Rifle Association of America ("NRA") moves to lift the discovery stay ordered by the Court on January 18, 2022, Dkt. No. 360, and to compel discovery. Dkt. No 377. Defendant Andrew M. Cuomo ("Cuomo") opposes the motion, Dkt. No. 382, and the NRA files a reply. Dkt. No 386. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case and will not restate it at length here. Suffice to say, as Cuomo points out, after nearly five years of litigation, three separate complaints, and innumerable motions filed, this case is at a critical juncture. As pertinent to the instant motion, on March 15, 2021, the Court granted Cuomo's motion to dismiss the claims in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to the extent they were brought against him in his official capacity. Dkt. No. 322. The Court ruled that the claims against Cuomo were barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Id. at 43. No motion to dismiss, however, was filed in Cuomo's individual capacity.

As to Maria Vullo (“Vullo”), the Court granted in part and denied in part her motion to dismiss the SAC. The Court found that Vullo was entitled to absolute immunity with respect to the NRA's selective enforcement claims and dismissed those claims in their entirety. Id. at 22-23. However, the Court declined to dismiss the First Amendment claims against Vullo individually, notwithstanding her assertion of qualified immunity. Id. at 28.

The Court also dismissed all claims against Linda Lacewell (“Lacewell”), the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) Superintendent at the time, in her official capacity, including the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Id. at 43.

On March 22, 2021, Vullo noticed her appeal of “that portion of the Opinion and Order of the District Court for the Northern District of New York, decided and entered on March 15, 2021 (Dkt. No. 322), that denied Ms. Vullo's motion to dismiss the claims against her on qualified immunity grounds.” Dkt. No. 325.

On January 18, 2022, the Court granted Vullo's motion to stay discovery in this matter, and determined that all discovery was stayed “during the pendency of defendant Vullo's qualified immunity appeal.” Dkt. No. 360 at 11-12. For reasons discussed in the Court's January 18, 2022 Decision and Order, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose a global stay, applying to “the entire case, including discovery relative to the claims against Defendant Cuomo.” Id. at 10-11.

On September 22, 2022, the Second Circuit (i) reversed this court's denial of Vullo's motion to dismiss as to the First Amendment claims and (ii) remanded the case with directions to enter judgment for Vullo. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo, 49 F.4th 700, 721 (2d Cir. 2022). The Second Circuit determined that the NRA “failed to plausibly allege” that Vullo “crossed the line between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce.” Id. at 707 (citing Zieper v Metzinger, 474 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted)). Moreover, the Circuit concluded, “even assuming that Vullo's actions and statements were somehow coercive,” Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct “did not violate clearly established law.” Id. As a result, the NRA's only remaining claims are the First Amendment claims against Cuomo in his individual capacity.

As Cuomo reports, on December 6, 2022, Judge Hummel held a conference with the parties and non-party DFS. During this conference, Judge Hummel asked counsel about their respective positions in the case in light of the Second Circuit's decision. The NRA indicated that it would be filing a petition for writ of certiorari as to the Second Circuit decision and would also file a motion seeking the discoverable documents described in the Special Master's reports.

On February 7, 2023, the NRA filed its Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking review of the Second Circuit decision. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the Petition.

On February 21, 2023, the NRA filed the instant Motion to Lift Stay and Compel Discovery. Dkt. No. 377. The NRA seeks an order lifting the discovery stay and compelling Cuomo to produce “responsive, non-privileged documents the NRA requested four years ago, and allow the NRA to depose Cuomo, Vullo, and Lacewell.” Dkt. 377 at 18. Cuomo opposes the motion. See Dkt. No. 382.

On March 20, 2023, Cuomo filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on (i) the NRA's failure to plausibly allege a First Amendment violation and (ii) Cuomo's qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 381. Cuomo maintains that this motion, if successful, would dismiss the SAC in its entirety. He asserts: “Notably, Governor Cuomo's motion relies on the Second Circuit's precedential decision dismissing the First Amendment claims against Vullo, which involves conduct ‘occur[ing] within the same general limited time period and involving a number of overlapping facts' as Governor Cuomo.” Dkt. No. 382 at 5 (quoting Dkt. No. 360 at 10). The NRA argues that the motion will not be successful.

III. DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), this Court has the discretion to stay discovery “for good cause.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). The NRA asserts that “[t]here is no reason for continuing to stay these proceedings” as the Second Circuit has resolved Vullo's interlocutory appeal. Dkt. No. 377 at 9 (quoting City of New York v. B.L Jennings, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 255, 256 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)). The NRA contends that the Second Circuit's Vullo decision does not mean that the claims against Cuomo are legally insufficient or that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Cuomo argues that given the Court's previous finding of good cause to impose the stay, the Second Circuit's Vullo decision, and his motion to dismiss, no reason exists to vacate the stay currently in effect. Moreover, he contends, good cause exists for the Court to extend the stay of discovery. Dkt. No. 382 at 5 (citing Gillard v. Rovelli, No. 9:12-CV-0083 LEK/CFH, 2013 WL 5503317, at *15 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2013)).

a. Impact of Cuomo's Dismissal Motion

Cuomo has moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the First Amendment claims against him in his individual capacity-i.e., the SAC's remaining claims. Dkt. No. 381. He asserts not only that the NRA fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but also that he is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Cuomo's purported immunity from the NRA's claims is not just a “defense to liability,” but “an immunity from suit.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991). The Supreme Court has instructed that discovery should not be allowed pending the resolution of an immunity question. See, e.g., Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (“Until [the] threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed”); Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996) (stating that qualified immunity provides protection “not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)(“[I]f the defendant does plead the immunity defense, the district court should resolve that threshold question before permitting discovery”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009) (“The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including avoidance of disruptive discovery.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Dkt. No. 360 at 7 (“Generally speaking, discovery should not be allowed pending the resolution of an immunity question.”). Regardless of the ultimate viability of Cuomo's qualified immunity defense, the Supreme Court's decisions indicating that no discovery should take place until the immunity defense is resolved weighs heavily against vacating the stay and in favor of maintaining it.

b. The Strength of Governor Cuomo's Dismissal Motion

In determining whether to stay discovery, the Court considers several factors including the strength of a dispositive motion underlying a stay application or application to continue a stay. See Car-Freshener Corp. v. Getty Images, Inc., No. 7:09-CV-01252 (GTS/GHL), 2010 WL 11681623, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010)(citation omitted). The NRA argues that Cuomo's dismissal motion will not be successful. Cuomo argues that he has submitted a meritorious arguments for dismissal based upon the Second Circuit's Vullo decision, making the strength of his defense “irrefutable.”

Without conducting a full scale determination of the pending dismissal motion, the Court finds that Cuomo has presented “substantial arguments” for dismissal of the claims against him. See Spencer Trask Software and Info Servs., LLC v. RPost Intern. Ltd., 206 F.R.D. 367, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (granting stay where defendant presented “substantial arguments” for dismissal of many, if not all, of the claims in a lawsuit)). As Cuomo argues, in his dismissal motion he points out that the Second Circuit made two findings as to the First Amendment claims against Vullo bearing directly on Cuomo's defense. First, the Second Circuit held that Vullo's statements-most notably, in the Guidance Letters and Press...