2/25/94 LLC v. Eastern Airlines, LLC
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-08692
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In 2/25/94 LLC v. Eastern Airlines, Judge Rearden granted the parties’ application, approved an amended schedule, and terminated pending motions subject to refiling if settlement fails.
The order affected 2/25/94 LLC, New England Patriots LLC, and Eastern Airlines, LLC by extending the expert-discovery schedule and terminating pending motions subject to possible refiling if the settlement was not completed.
What happened
In 2/25/94 LLC and New England Patriots LLC v. Eastern Airlines, LLC, the parties jointly asked the court to extend the deadline for expert discovery while they finalized a settlement they said they had reached in principle. They asked to move that deadline to February 21, 2025.
The court granted the application and said it would enter the parties’ proposed amended case-management plan in a separate order. The court also terminated all pending motions, allowing them to be filed again if the settlement in principle was not completed. The Clerk was directed to terminate two docket entries, ECF Nos. 14 and 42.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden issued the order on January 27, 2025. The order addressed scheduling and pending motions; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- 2/25/94 LLC v. Eastern Airlines, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-08692
- Rearden
- Jan. 27, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs, 2/25/94 LLC and New England Patriots LLC, and defendant Eastern Airlines, LLC jointly requested an extension of the expert-discovery deadlines in the existing civil case-management plan and scheduling order. The parties stated that they had resolved the case in principle and were working toward a binding settlement agreement. They asked the court to enter their proposed amended scheduling order so they could use the coming weeks to finalize the settlement rather than proceed with expert discovery.
The existing schedule required expert discovery—including expert reports, production of supporting documents, and depositions—to be completed after the close of fact discovery. The proposed amended plan set February 21, 2025, as the deadline for completing expert discovery.
Ruling
The court granted the application nunc pro tunc. It stated that, by separate order, it would enter the parties’ proposed amended case-management plan. The court terminated all pending motions without prejudice to refiling if the parties’ settlement in principle was not consummated. “Without prejudice to refiling” means the order did not prevent a motion from being filed again under the condition stated by the court. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 14 and 42.
The order was a scheduling and case-management ruling. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.