NY Judge Rules Automatic Discovery Stay Applies in State Securities Litigation, Highlighting Post-'Cyan' Split
Justice Andrew S. Borrok cited the "simple, plain and unambiguous" language of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in holding that the statute's automatic discovery stay applied to state court actions during a pending motion to dismiss.
August 07, 2019 at 03:06 PM
4 minute read
A New York state Supreme Court judge has ruled that securities cases brought in state court are subject to an automatic stay of discovery, just as they are in federal court, highlighting a divide in New York amid an uptick in filings following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling in Cyan.
Justice Andrew S. Borrok cited the “simple, plain and unambiguous” language of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in holding that the statute’s automatic discovery stay applied to state court actions during a pending motion to dismiss.
Borrok’s ruling, issued Tuesday, appears to be at odds with another Manhattan Supreme Court justice, who held in a recent pair of rulings that the stays would undermine the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Cyan that state courts have jurisdiction to hear cases over allegedly false or misleading disclosures in connection with initial public offerings.
In a 17-page decision, Borrok said he disagreed with the “reasoning and conclusion” that automatic discovery stays should apply to federal actions but not those brought in state courts, saying that federal law did not distinguish between the two.
“Nowhere,” Borrok wrote,”does the statute indicate that it applies only to actions brought in federal court.”
“The statute simply does not say that the automatic stay is limited to claims brought pursuant to the [Securities and Exchange Act of 1933] in federal court,” he said.
The ruling came in a securities class action filed against EverQuote Inc.’s directors and officers, stemming from the online insurance marketplace’s 2018 IPO. The defendants moved to dismiss the case and asked for a stay of discovery pending a ruling on their motion.
Plaintiff Mark Townsend opposed the motion and pointed to Justice Saliann Scarpulla’s rulings that nixed the automatic waiting period for discovery.
Borrok, however, came down on the side of EverQuote’s brass. In his ruling, Barrok said Congress enacted the stays to prevent plaintiffs from using otherwise meritless lawsuits to make significant discovery in the hope of leveraging an early settlement.
There was “simply no basis,” he said, to think the same reasoning wouldn’t apply to the same types of cases brought in state court.
“At the risk of gilding the lily, the court notes that a divergence in the application of the Reform Act discovery stay in state and federal court would create the undesirable … and absurd incentive for lawsuits brought under the 1933 Act to be brought in state court as opposed to federal court to avoid the very protection supporting the enactment of the Reform Act and necessarily confounding Congress’ acknowledged intention that the lion’s share of securities litigation would occur in the federal courts,” Borrok wrote.
Attorneys from both sides were not immediately available comment on the ruling.
Townsend is represented by Samuel Rudman of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.
The defendants are represented by Daniel Halston and Timothy Perla of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and Sharon Nelles and Andrew Finn of Sullivan & Cromwell.
Read More:
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Issue of First Impression’: New York Judge Clears Coinbase Appeal Amid Crypto Regulatory Clash
4 minute readMeet the Long Island Judge Tapped to Be US Attorney for Eastern District of New York
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1H&R Block Accused of Negligence in Data Breach Suit
- 2Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
- 3Following Treasury Hack, Do Federal Cybersecurity Standards Need an Update?
- 4Former Capital One Deputy GC Takes Legal Reins of AIG Spinoff
- 5‘Old Home Week’: Justice Breyer Hears Challenge to Cruise Ship Ordinance in 1st Circuit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250