‘Bait-and-Switch’ Plaintiff Urges Denial of AT&T's Motion to Stay Discovery

AT&T’s motion to stay discovery in plaintiff Robert Graham’s fraud case until a decision is made on AT&T’s motion to compel Graham’s claims to arbitration is “inappropriate and unjustified,” said Graham’s reply in opposition Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-05155) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Graham alleges AT&T ran its smartphone upgrade exchange program like a “bait-and-switch” scheme (see 2303130002). Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “explicitly states that the parties may begin discovery as soon as the action is commenced,” said Graham’s reply. “Any request for a stay of discovery must be supported by a strong showing of good cause,” it said. AT&T’s pending motion to transfer the case to arbitration doesn’t provide “sufficient grounds for a stay of discovery,” it said. AT&T hasn’t shown discovery “would be burdensome or costly,” nor has it demonstrated the information sought “is irrelevant to the issues at hand,” it said. Allowing a discovery stay at this stage of the proceedings “would unfairly prejudice” plaintiff Graham, it said. Graham “has a right to conduct discovery in order to build a case and prepare for trial,” it said. Delaying or denying this right “would only serve to hinder the plaintiff's ability to obtain a fair and just resolution” of his claims, it said.