PDK Commercial Photographers, Ltd. v. Eagle Transfer Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-00055
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In PDK Commercial Photographers v. Eagle Transfer, Judge Liman extended Eagle Transfer’s response deadline and adjourned the initial conference, without resolving the settlement request.
Eagle Transfer received a response deadline of June 22, 2020, and the initial pretrial conference was moved to June 23, 2020. The provided text does not show whether the court granted or denied the requested settlement conference.
What happened
PDK Commercial Photographers, Ltd. v. Eagle Transfer Corp. involved Eagle Transfer’s request for more time to respond to the complaint and to postpone a scheduled telephone conference. The parties were discussing settlement and had agreed to the requested extension and postponement.
Eagle Transfer also asked the court to require the parties and their lawyers to attend a settlement conference. It argued that the parties were close to settling and described concerns about the plaintiff’s lawyer’s litigation history. The opinion text does not show a ruling on that settlement-conference request.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered Eagle Transfer to answer or otherwise respond by June 22, 2020, and moved the initial conference from June 11 to June 23, 2020. The text does not state a separate disposition of the request for a settlement conference.
The detailed version
- PDK Commercial Photographers, Ltd. v. Eagle Transfer Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-00055
- Lewis Liman
- June 9, 2020
Background
Eagle Transfer submitted a letter requesting three forms of relief: (1) a 14-day extension, until June 22, 2020, to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint; (2) an adjournment of the telephone initial conference scheduled for June 11, 2020; and (3) an order requiring the plaintiff and its counsel to participate in a settlement conference under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Eagle Transfer stated that the parties had already made one consensual request for an extension and that the plaintiff consented to the new request. It said the parties had used the time for settlement discussions and were only a few thousand dollars apart. Eagle Transfer also explained that its lawyer’s daughter’s graduation conflicted with the scheduled initial conference and said it was available later that day.
Settlement-conference request
Eagle Transfer argued that Rule 16 allows a court to require attorneys, unrepresented parties, and, when appropriate, a party or representative to attend or remain available for a settlement conference. It asked that the conference be held with all parties present and suggested referral to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. The letter also discussed the plaintiff’s counsel’s litigation history and threatened that Eagle Transfer would seek security for costs if the case did not settle.
The text provided does not contain an express ruling on the requested settlement conference, the requested attendance of all parties, or security for costs.
Ruling
The order states that Eagle Transfer “shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by June 22, 2020.” It also states that the initial pretrial conference scheduled for June 11, 2020, at 11:30 a.m. was “ADJOURNED to June 23, 2020 at 11:30 a.m.” The order is marked “SO ORDERED” on June 9, 2020, by Judge Lewis J. Liman.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses the deadline for responding to the complaint and the scheduling of an initial conference, without deciding the copyright dispute or stating an express ruling on the settlement-conference request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.