Israel v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-04335
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Israel v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Judge Woods adopted a pretrial schedule in part and sought views on an independent medical expert.
Jessica Israel and the defendants, First Unum Life Insurance Company and Unum Life Insurance Company of America, whose pretrial submissions and possible use of an independent expert are governed by the order.
What happened
In Israel v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, the court set deadlines for the parties’ pretrial submissions after receiving their proposed schedule. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The court adopted the proposed dates and page limits in part but required the parties to email their submissions first and wait until briefing was complete before filing the full papers electronically. The parties also had to file a joint pretrial order and explain their positions on using an independent expert to advise the court about medical records.
Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the scheduling order on December 5, 2024. The order requires the parties to address the possible expert by April 16, 2025, with other pretrial submissions due between January 29 and May 16, 2025.
The detailed version
- Israel v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America · No. 1:21-cv-04335
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 5, 2024
Order and background
The court had previously ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule for their pretrial submissions. The parties then submitted a joint letter proposing dates and page limits. The court adopted the briefing schedule in part.
Pretrial briefing schedule
The court adopted the proposed dates and page limits but directed the parties not to file their submissions on the court’s electronic filing system until briefing was complete. The required sequence was:
- By January 29, 2025, the plaintiff had to email proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a memorandum of law of no more than 30 pages, copying the court and all counsel of record. - By April 4, 2025, the defendant had to email a response to the plaintiff’s proposed findings, the defendant’s own proposed findings, and a memorandum of law of no more than 40 pages, again copying the court and all counsel of record. - By May 16, 2025, the plaintiff had to email a response to the defendant’s proposed findings and a reply memorandum of law of no more than 10 pages.
After the May 16 submission, the plaintiff was directed to file the full set of papers electronically as soon as practicable. The parties also had to file a joint pretrial order by May 16, 2025, complying with Rule 5(A) of the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.
Possible independent expert
The court reiterated that it might benefit from an impartial expert chosen by the parties or, if necessary, appointed by the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 706. The proposed expert would advise the court concerning the medical documents in the stipulated record. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by April 16, 2025, explaining their positions on whether an independent expert would be appropriate.
Disposition
This was a procedural scheduling order. It adopted the proposed briefing schedule in part and imposed additional filing instructions and deadlines. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.