Plaintiffs in Monique da Silva Moore, et al. v. Publicis Groupe SA and MSLGroup Wednesday filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Peck’s rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections. These include motions for conditional certification of collective action and for leave to file a second amended complaint, as well as a ruling on plaintiffs’ objections to Peck’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ issues with discovery with predictive coding as not ripe for review, and plaintiffs’ motion for Peck to recuse himself from the case.
In Wednesday’s filings, plaintiffs stated that Peck rejected their motion to stay discovery “without considering Plaintiffs reasons or the various factors set forth by case law.” Apparently, plaintiffs did get the opportunity to state on the record why they believed they met the legal standard of a stay per Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), but felt their argument was cut short by Peck. According to the plaintiffs, Peck accused them of “blackmail” by requesting information on “any employees” not just the named plaintiffs, and claimed plaintiffs attacked the judge’s integrity with their recusal motion, among other things.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
