Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2021

McGee v. Blackrock, Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:21-cv-00757
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
19
EmploymentCivil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In McGee v. Blackrock, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered mediation and initial employment-case discovery, canceled the initial conference, and set May 6 deadlines.

Who this affects

Brittanie McGee and Blackrock, Inc., whose case was referred to mediation and placed under the specified initial-discovery and case-management procedures.

What happened

Brittanie McGee sued Blackrock, Inc., and the case was assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick for all purposes. This order addressed early case procedures, not the underlying claims.

The court automatically referred the case to mediation and required the parties to use special initial-discovery procedures for employment cases involving an allegedly harmful employment action. Because of the public health crisis, the court said it would not hold an initial pretrial conference.

Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit a joint status letter if mediation failed and to file a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order by May 6, 2021. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
McGee v. Blackrock, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00757
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 17, 2021

Nature of the Order

This is an early case-management order and notice concerning an initial conference. It does not decide the merits of Brittanie McGee’s claims against Blackrock, Inc.

Court-Ordered Procedures

The court assigned the case to Judge Vernon S. Broderick for all purposes. Under the Southern District of New York’s standing administrative order for employment-discrimination cases, the court designated the case for automatic referral to the court’s mediation program.

The court also ordered that initial discovery be conducted under the Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action. The attached protocols require the parties to exchange specified documents and information early in the case, generally within 30 days after the defendant submits a responsive pleading or motion. The protocols address information such as communications about the claims, employment records, personnel files, performance evaluations, documents supporting the employment decision, potential witnesses, and claimed damages. They replace the parties’ usual initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), but do not eliminate later discovery available under the federal rules and local rules.

The attached protocols state that they generally apply to employment cases challenging an allegedly adverse action, subject to listed exceptions, including class actions and cases involving only hiring discrimination, harassment or a hostile work environment, wage-and-hour violations, failure to provide disability accommodations, family-leave violations, or employee-benefit violations. The order itself does not discuss whether any exception applies here.

Initial Conference and Deadlines

Because of the public health crisis, the court ordered that it would not hold an initial pretrial conference. If mediation is unsuccessful, counsel for all parties must submit a joint letter by May 6, 2021, addressing the nature of the action and defenses, jurisdiction and venue, contemplated or pending motions, discovery, settlement discussions, estimated trial length, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

The parties must also jointly submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order by May 6, 2021, through the court’s electronic filing system.

Disposition

Judge Broderick entered the case-management directives described above. The order does not grant or deny a merits motion, resolve a claim, or state an outcome for either party’s underlying legal dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 19-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.