HPOUUTIAl Peover LOUOURS LL Ll UULI | 101 □ 875 Third Avenue New York. NY 10022 pepper locke troutman.com

Matthew J. Aaronson D 212.704.6006 [email protected] April 2, 2025 By Email and ECF The Honorable John P. Cronan Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, New York 10007-1312 Re: Anthem Healthchoice Assurance, Inc.; No. 1:24-cv-08012 Dear Judge Cronan: Pursuant to Rules 1.A. and 6.A. of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, Defendant Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. (“Anthem”) submits this letter motion to stay discovery pending disposition of Anthem’s motion to dismiss, filed March 28, 2025 (ECF No. 24). Plaintiffs consent to this request. The Parties agree that a stay of discovery pending the Court’s decision on the motion to dismiss will preserve both the Parties’ and the Court’s resources and that neither side will be prejudiced by the stay. Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint on October 22, 2024. Anthem agreed to waive service on November 6, 2024, and the Parties stipulated to extend Anthem’s responsive pleading deadline to February 14, 2025 to allow the Parties to meet and confer regarding, among other things, the appropriate parties to this putative class action and Anthem’s grounds for seeking dismissal of the Complaint. On February 14, 2025, Anthem filed a pre-motion letter regarding its anticipated motion to dismiss, and the Court on February 21, 2025 entered an order establishing the briefing schedule for Anthem’s motion. Anthem filed its motion to dismiss on March 28, 2025. That same day, the Court entered an order observing that the Parties had not moved the Court for a stay of discovery pending disposition of Anthem’s motion to dismiss, and ordering the parties to file a proposed Civil Management Plan and Scheduling Order by April 4, 2025 (ECF No. 22) (the “Discovery Order”). The Parties now request a stay of discovery and vacatur of the Discovery Order pending disposition of Anthem’s motion to dismiss. Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has discretion to stay discovery “for good cause shown.” Spencer Trask Software & Info. Servs., LLC v. RPost Int'l Ltd.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2002). “Good cause may be shown where a party has filed a dispositive motion, the stay is for a short period of time, and the opposing party will not be prejudiced by the stay.” /d. Here, the proposed stay will be short, as Anthem has already filed its motion to dismiss, and the stay will last only until the motion is determined by the Court. And the Parties agree they will not be prejudiced by the stay, as each has consented to the entry of a stay of discovery. Even if the Court ultimately denies Anthem’s motion to dismiss, “a temporary and finite delay in attaining discovery” does not constitute prejudice that would weigh against granting

BY EMAIL AND ECF = er Ic 7 “Ke April 2, 2025 pepper locke Page 2

astay. In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Secs. & ERISA Litig.,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2003). The Parties therefore respectfully request that the Court stay discovery pending the disposition of Anthem’s motion to dismiss. Respectfully submitted, TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP By: /s/ Jacob Gardener Matthew J. Aaronson Jacob Gardener 875 Third Avenue Samuel Rosh New York, NY 10022 250 Vesey Street, 27th Floor Telephone: (212) 704-6000 New York, NY 10281 [email protected] Tel: (212) 335-2965 [email protected] [email protected] Adam Feinberg, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Steve Cohen MILLER & CHEVALIER CHARTERED Anna Menkova 900 16th Street NW POLLOCK COHEN LLP Black Lives Matter Plaza 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 Washington, DC 20006 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (202) 626-6087 Tel: (646) 517-0542 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiffs Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.

cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)

"A motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, and discovery should not be routinely stayed sin on the basis that a motion to dismiss has been filed." Khan v. New York City, No. 24 Civ. 2168 (JAM), 2024 4814236, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, "upon a showing of g cause a district court has considerable discretion to stay discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)." Hong Le Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation m: omitted). "A court determining whether to grant a stay of discovery pending a motion must look to the partic circumstances and posture of each case," and in evaluating whether to stay discovery pending the disposition o a motion to dismiss, "courts typically consider: (1) whether the [d]efendants ha[ve] made a strong showing | the plaintiff's claim is unmeritorious; (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it; and (3) risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.” Sharma v. Open Door NY Home Care Servs., Inc., F.R.D. 565, 568 (E.D.N.Y. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). After weighing these factors, the Court concludes that good cause exists to stay discovery in this case. With purporting to pass on the merits of the pending motion to dismiss, Defendant has challenged liability on, i alia, preemption and exhaustion grounds. See Dkt. 25. Disposition of the issue of whether Plaintiff successfully stated a claim in the first instance would avoid any prejudice from subjecting Defendant to br discovery in the interim. As Plaintiff has joined the motion to stay discovery, the Court sees no resul prejudice to Plaintiff. Accordingly, discovery in this matter is stayed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) pending Court's ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss. The parties’ April 4, 2025 deadline to submit a « management plan is adjourned sine die. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket Number 27 SO ORDERED. Date: April 3, 2025 New York, New York SOO EE JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge