DECISION and ORDER In this §1983 action alleging violations of Plaintiff’s First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, by papers filed June 23, 2022 (Dkt. 39), Defendants move for bifurcation of discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”) (Dkt. 39-1). Specifically, Defendants request that discovery relating to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants based on Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 650 (1978) (“Monell”) be stayed until the threshold issue of whether Defendants violated any of Plaintiff’s alleged constitutional rights is adjudicated in Plaintiff’s favor on summary judgment. See Defendants’ Memorandum of Law, Dkt. 39-6 at 6 (citing Gavin v. City of New York, 2021 WL 3774113 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2021) (noting that defendant’s liability was predicated upon whether plaintiff can first show a constitutional violation and explaining that “bifurcating the case, at least until [the plaintiff] prevails on a motion for summary judgment, bears the potential of reducing unnecessary discovery and is therefore warranted”). Plaintiff responded to the motion by papers filed July 19, 2022 (Dkts. 43 to 43-12),1 and Defendants replied by papers filed July 26, 2022 (Dkts. 45 to 45-5). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges several Monell claims including that Defendant Brown, sued in his official and individual capacities, and Defendant City violated Plaintiff’s First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by issuing a week long curfew order restricting public protest demonstrations between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., Compl.
93, 173, in regard to Defendant City’s policy and practice which authorized the use and concealment of unlawful excessive force to enforce the curfew, Compl.
