MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, James O’Reilly and Brett O’Reilly (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this land use action against Defendant, Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre (“Defendant” or the “Village”) on June 8, 2023 alleging that their subdivision application was unreasonably delayed through legislative, Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”), and Planning Board (“PB”) processes. See generally, ECF No. 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert three causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983: (i) substantive due process, (ii) equal protection, and (iii) violations of the First Amendment, based on their appeal of determinations by these boards. (Id.) Following unsuccessful settlement attempts, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and subsequently moved to stay discovery in this case pending the outcome of its motion to dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 19, 27, 28.) Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 28), which is opposed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 27-20). The motion to dismiss is pending before the Honorable Natasha C. Merle (ECF No. 27). For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The following factual allegations are drawn from the Complaint. See generally, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs purchased a 1.75-acre parcel in the name of Brett O’Reilly, which was previously open space that was part of a five-acre campus owned by a local Church. (ECF No. 1 at 10.) The Church had been engaged in a dispute with a nursery school that resulted in the school vacating its basement, and some people in the community blamed Plaintiffs for the school’s demise. (Id. at
15-16.) James O’Reilly had meetings with public officials regarding the potential development of the property in 2014. (Id. at 17-18.) On January 4, 2016, the Board of Trustees (“BOT”) adopted a definition of the word “street” for the purpose of establishing lot or building frontage to refer to a “public road or street.” (Id. at 19.)1 Plaintiffs allege the Village added the “street” definition in efforts to thwart Plaintiffs’ development plan, which would entail the creation of a new dead-end, or cul-de-sac street, running off of Hempstead Avenue, to enable access to new lots. (Id. at 21-22.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the addition of the definition required them to seek and obtain zoning variances in order to proceed with their subdivision development. (Id. at 22.) James O’Reilly “began to plan” their development in the spring of 2016, and “attempted to engage” with members of the BOT through the summer. (Id. at
