MANHATTAN (LN) — U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas on Monday granted a motion to stay discovery in a high-profile Antiterrorism Act lawsuit against Columbia University pro-Palestine groups, ruling that the burden of litigation could chill First Amendment rights while motions to dismiss are pending.
Plaintiffs Iris Weinstein Haggai, Judy Lynne Weinstein, and Gad Haggai sued defendants including Nerdeen Kiswani, Mahmoud Khalil, and Maryam Alwan, alleging they served as a Hamas propaganda arm by providing knowing assistance to the terrorist organization through public statements, propaganda distribution, and campus rallies.
The suit, filed under the Antiterrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute, claims the defendants aided and abetted Hamas in the October 7, 2023 attacks that killed more than 1,200 people and resulted of more than 200 hostages.
Vargas noted that while a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, defendants raised substantial arguments regarding the First Amendment implications of these claims. She pointed to two recent decisions in other districts where courts dismissed similar ATA claims for failing to establish a requisite nexus between the alleged conduct and the terrorist attacks.
"Given the large number of Plaintiffs and Defendants and the breadth of the claims asserted in this case, discovery in this action is likely to be voluminous and burdensome," Vargas wrote.
The judge warned that proceeding with discovery without a stay could lead to expensive litigation that could be rendered moot if the court grants the motions to dismiss. She cited precedent suggesting that the expense and burden of defending against a potentially meritless lawsuit could itself chill First Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs argued that a stay would cause prejudice, noting that defendant Alwan has graduated from Columbia University and defendant Khalil may be removed from the United States. Vargas rejected these arguments, stating that defendants are under obligations to preserve relevant evidence and that plaintiffs failed to set forth specific prejudice regarding Khalil's potential departure.
The court adjourned the initial case management conference scheduled for May 26, 2026, sine die.