Smith v. Homes for the Homeless

Nature of the Order

This is an initial case-management order and notice concerning the next steps in the case. The opinion does not state the substance of Richard Smith’s claims, Homes for the Homeless’s defenses, or the legal issues the court ultimately will decide.

Court-Ordered Procedures

The court designated the case for automatic referral to its alternative-dispute-resolution mediation program under the Southern District of New York’s standing administrative order concerning employment-discrimination cases.

The court also ordered that initial discovery follow the attached Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action. Those protocols require the parties to exchange specified documents and information within 30 days after the defendant submits a responsive pleading or motion, unless the court orders otherwise. The required exchanges generally concern the employment relationship, communications, people with relevant knowledge, documents supporting claims or defenses, damages, employment decisions, workplace policies, compensation and benefits, and certain unemployment or disability-benefit information. The protocols replace the parties’ ordinary initial-disclosure obligations under Rule 26(a)(1) but do not eliminate later discovery available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The protocols state that the initial discovery generally covers the three years before the alleged adverse action. They also provide that objections are limited to the grounds identified in Rule 26(b)(2)(B), and that discovery responses remain subject to requirements concerning certification, supplementation, and the form of document production. The protocols identify categories of cases excluded from the pilot program, including class actions and cases involving only hiring discrimination, harassment or hostile-work-environment claims, wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure-to-accommodate claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act claims, or Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims. The order says a party may ask the court to exempt the case from the protocols for good cause.

Further Deadlines and Instructions

The court stated that it would not hold an initial pretrial conference because of the public health crisis. If the mediation process was unsuccessful, counsel for all parties had to submit by July 9, 2021, a joint letter of no more than three pages addressing the nature of the action and principal defenses, the bases for jurisdiction and venue, contemplated or outstanding motions, discovery completed or needed for settlement discussions, prior settlement discussions without disclosing offers or settlement positions, estimated trial length, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

By the same date, the parties also had to jointly submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order through the court’s electronic filing system.

Pro Se Instructions and Effect

The order states that communications with the court by a pro se party—that is, a party without a lawyer—should be directed to the Pro Se Intake Unit. It further directs the Clerk’s Office to mail a copy of the order to Richard Smith.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not enter judgment, dismiss any claim, or decide the merits. The order instead established mediation, discovery, filing, and case-management procedures for the ongoing case.