In re Hearst Communications State Right of Publicity Statute Cases
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-08895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re Hearst Communications: Judge Gorenstein ordered clarification about deadlines, a possible discovery stay, and a motion to appoint counsel.
The parties, including the plaintiffs, were required to clarify the effect of their stipulation, the possible discovery pause, and whether the plaintiffs sought a ruling on the motion to appoint counsel.
What happened
In re Hearst Communications State Right of Publicity Statute Cases involved a party stipulation saying that other deadlines, conferences, and hearings were vacated. The order said it was unclear what the parties intended this stipulation to change.
The court also questioned whether the plaintiffs wanted a ruling on a motion to appoint counsel filed in a related case, 21 Civ. 9109. The order noted that the court questioned the need for that motion.
The court directed the parties to file a status letter explaining these issues by January 26, 2022. United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order.
The detailed version
- In re Hearst Communications State Right of Publicity Statute Cases · No. 1:21-cv-08895
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 20, 2022
Order
The court addressed uncertainty about a party stipulation stating that all other deadlines, conferences, and hearings were vacated. The court said it was unclear whether the parties intended the stipulation to vacate the requirements in Docket No. 22 and thereby agree that discovery should be paused while they awaited an expected motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint.
The court also said it was unclear whether the plaintiffs sought a ruling on a motion to appoint counsel filed only in Case No. 21 Civ. 9109, Docket No. 16. The court questioned the need for that motion and cited Sullivan v. Barclays PLC.
Disposition
The court directed the parties to address both issues in a status letter filed electronically by January 26, 2022. The order did not decide the expected motion to dismiss, whether discovery was stayed, or the motion to appoint counsel.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.