Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 23, 2020

Goddess Stallings v. Wellife Network, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-09433
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Goddess Stallings v. Wellife Network, Judge Furman entered a case-management order setting discovery and pretrial deadlines without deciding the claims.

Who this affects

Goddess Stallings and Wellife Network, Inc., as well as their counsel, are affected by the deadlines and procedures in the case-management order.

What happened

Goddess Stallings v. Wellife Network, Inc. is a civil case in which the parties submitted a proposed schedule under the federal civil rules. The order does not describe the underlying claims or decide who should win.

The court set deadlines for amended pleadings, initial disclosures, document requests, interrogatories, fact discovery, and possible expert discovery. It also established procedures for discovery disputes, settlement discussions, motions, and preparation for trial. The order set the next pretrial conference for September 29, 2020, and estimated the trial would last five days.

Judge Jesse Furman ordered the case-management plan and scheduling requirements, canceled the April 28, 2020 pretrial conference, encouraged continued settlement negotiations, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 16.

The detailed version

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

Case
Goddess Stallings v. Wellife Network, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09433
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 23, 2020

Nature of the Order

The parties submitted a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3). This is a case-management order: it organizes the litigation and sets deadlines. The opinion text does not state the parties’ underlying claims or resolve their legal dispute.

Deadlines and Litigation Procedures

The order provides that amended pleadings and requests to add parties may not be filed without the court’s permission, and sets May 28, 2020, as the deadline for such motions. It sets May 12, 2020, for initial disclosures and, where applicable, for the plaintiff to provide medical-record release authorizations.

The order sets May 28, 2020, for initial document requests and certain interrogatories. Fact discovery must be completed by September 28, 2020. If expert discovery is required, the order sets November 12, 2020, as the completion deadline. It also addresses depositions, requests to admit, discovery disputes, and the procedures for seeking extensions.

The parties’ counsel must meet in person for at least one hour to discuss settlement within fourteen days after fact discovery closes. The order governs motions under the federal and local civil rules and the judge’s individual practices. It states that, absent good cause, the court will not have summary-judgment practice in a non-jury case, and it sets deadlines for any permitted dispositive motions and expert-testimony motions.

Pretrial and Trial Schedule

The parties must generally submit a joint pretrial order within thirty days after discovery closes, or within thirty days after a decision on a dispositive motion if one is filed. The order sets the next pretrial conference for September 29, 2020, at 3:15 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse. The parties estimated that trial would last five days. The text’s checkboxes regarding some party elections, including consent to proceed before a magistrate judge and jury trial, are not sufficiently clear in the provided copy to report their selections reliably.

Disposition

The court entered the case-management plan and scheduling requirements. It canceled the pretrial conference scheduled for April 28, 2020, encouraged the parties to continue settlement efforts with the mediator, stated that they should file an appropriate letter motion if a new referral order became necessary, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 16. The order does not grant or deny a merits motion and does not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-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.