U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary Stein issued the order on May 11, ruling that the plaintiffs’ requests for the identities of up to 110 “John and Jane Doe” officials and documents regarding internal agency communications were overly broad and would impose an undue burden on the City and State of New York.
The plaintiffs, Jonathan and Lenore Elfand, sued the City of New York, the Mayor, the New York City Sheriff, and various state officials, alleging warrantless inspections and seizures of their business, Empire Cannabis Clubs, violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
At a pre-motion conference on Feb. 25, 2026, the Elfands stated they intended to amend the complaint to add their business entity, Empire Cannabis Clubs LLC, as a plaintiff. However, the court noted that the Elfands currently lack standing to assert the core constitutional claims because those rights belong to the business entity, not the individuals, according to a prior ruling by U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan.
Judge Cronan denied the Elfands’ emergency motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on Nov. 21, 2025, on standing grounds. The Elfands appealed Judge Cronan's rulings to the New York Court of Appeals. Separately, the Second Circuit recently denied their request for interim relief pending that appeal.
The Elfands sought discovery to identify the individual officials responsible for the enforcement actions and to find “whistleblowers” who had raised concerns about the legality of the cannabis enforcement scheme. They also requested inspection logs, field notes, and inter-agency communications.
Stein rejected the argument that the discovery was necessary to support the plaintiffs’ conspiracy and Monell claims before a motion to dismiss. He cited Second Circuit precedent that a plaintiff is not entitled to discovery to argue they have sufficiently pleaded their claims, noting that the court’s function on a motion to dismiss is to determine if the complaint is legally sufficient, not to weigh evidence.
The magistrate judge also ruled the requests were not narrowly tailored. The Elfands sought information on all government employees who raised concerns about the enforcement scheme, which could encompass dozens of individuals over several years, rather than just those personally involved in the Elfands’ specific case.
Stein noted that the defendants have colorable arguments to dismiss the remaining claims, including false arrest and unlawful deprivation of property, and that proceeding with discovery while dispositive motions are pending would waste resources.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that government records were subject to routine destruction, noting that defendants have an affirmative obligation to preserve relevant evidence once litigation is anticipated.
The Elfands have been ordered to amend their complaint by May 22, 2026, or provide a basis for delaying the filing.