Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 6, 2020

The Cookware Company, LLC v. Austin

Judge
Sidney Stein
Docket
1:15-cv-05796
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In The Cookware Company v. Austin, Judge Stein issued a pretrial schedule for expert-report briefing, hearings, and trial.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the defendants, their counsel, and the court’s handling of Thomas Heck’s expert report were affected by the deadlines and scheduled proceedings.

What happened

The Cookware Company (USA), LLC v. Austin involves The Cookware Company (USA), LLC as plaintiff and Steven Austin, Steven Austin, LLC, and Hudson Home Group, LLC as defendants. The order followed a pretrial conference attended by counsel for all parties.

The court set deadlines for defendants’ motion to strike Thomas Heck’s expert report, the plaintiff’s response, and defendants’ reply. It also set page limits, deadlines for pretrial materials and responses to motions in limine, and dates for the final pretrial conference, a hearing on the expert report, and trial.

Judge Sidney H. Stein entered the scheduling order on March 6, 2020. The order did not decide whether the expert report should be stricken or resolve the parties’ underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The Cookware Company, LLC v. Austin · No. 1:15-cv-05796
Judge
Sidney Stein
Date
Mar. 6, 2020

Background

The court issued this order after a pretrial conference at which counsel for all parties were present. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.

Order

The court ordered defendants to file their motion to strike Thomas Heck’s expert report under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by March 20, 2020. A motion to strike asks the court to exclude material from consideration; a Daubert motion concerns whether expert evidence is admissible. The plaintiff’s response was due April 3, and defendants’ reply was due April 10. The moving and responsive briefs were limited to 20 pages each, and the reply was limited to 10 pages.

The joint pretrial order, proposed jury instructions, and, if desired, proposed questions for jury selection and motions to exclude evidence were due May 26. Responses to any motions to exclude evidence were due June 1. The final pretrial conference was scheduled for June 5 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing on the expert report was scheduled for June 8 at 10:00 a.m., with the parties required to notify the court by June 1 of any witnesses they intended to call. Trial was scheduled to begin June 15 at 9:30 a.m.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Sidney H. Stein entered a procedural scheduling order. The court did not rule on defendants’ motion to strike the expert report, and it did not decide the merits of the case. The order established deadlines and hearing and trial dates for the parties and their counsel.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.