In re Lemonade, Inc. Data Disclosure Litig.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:25-cv-04106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Lemonade, Inc. Data Disclosure Litig.: Judge Parker denied adjournment, stayed intervening deadlines, and deferred other issues in the parties’ mediation request.
The parties and the case deadlines falling between September 3, 2025, and the scheduled September 10, 2025, conference; the order does not address the merits of the disputed claims.
What happened
In re Lemonade, Inc. Data Disclosure Litig. involves a joint request by the parties to postpone the September 10, 2025, initial case-management conference and pause case deadlines while they pursue mediation. The parties also discussed limited discovery before mediation.
The court denied the requested postponement. It stayed deadlines falling between September 3, 2025, and the conference date, and it deferred ruling on the other issues raised in the parties’ letter.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the order on September 3, 2025. This order addressed scheduling and mediation-related requests; it did not decide the disputed claims.
The detailed version
- In re Lemonade, Inc. Data Disclosure Litig. · No. 1:25-cv-04106
- Katharine Parker
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
The parties jointly asked the court to postpone the initial case-management conference scheduled for September 10, 2025, and to pause case deadlines while they arranged private mediation. They said they had exchanged potential mediators’ names and availability and expected mediation could occur within 90 days. They also discussed exchanging limited discovery before mediation.
The requested pause covered deadlines for the parties’ report following their required planning meeting, defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ request to appoint interim lead counsel, and defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint. The parties also proposed procedures for lifting the pause and reporting the mediation’s outcome.
Ruling
The court denied the requested postponement of the September 10 conference. The court stayed deadlines falling between the date of its endorsement, September 3, 2025, and the conference date. It deferred ruling on the other issues raised in the parties’ letter.
Effect
The order concerns case scheduling and mediation-related administration. It does not rule on the claims, the request to appoint interim lead counsel, the consolidated complaint, or the merits of the dispute. The opinion does not specify which other issues raised in the letter remain unresolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.