Cardwell v. Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-10256
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cardwell v. Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Judge Woods struck Cardwell’s late, noncompliant filing and ordered corrected summary-judgment materials by February 7, 2022.
The order affected the plaintiff, her counsel, and the defendants by striking the plaintiff’s late statement of facts, setting new filing requirements, and setting the deadline for any defendants’ reply.
What happened
In Cardwell v. Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, the plaintiff missed the January 21, 2022 deadline for opposing the defendants’ request for summary judgment. She filed a 198-page statement of facts three days late, added nearly 900 paragraphs, and acknowledged that it did not follow the court’s rules. She also did not file her legal memorandum by the deadline.
The court struck the plaintiff’s statement of facts because she failed to follow the scheduling order and the required format. It allowed her to file an amended statement by February 7, 2022, but only to remove information—not add new paragraphs. The plaintiff also had to file her opposition memorandum by that date and immediately email its current draft to the defendants.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the defendants to serve any reply within three weeks after receiving the opposition. He said any changes to the memorandum should be limited to changes reflecting the amended statement of facts and warned that further action might be necessary because of the plaintiff’s noncompliance.
The detailed version
- Cardwell v. Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP · No. 1:19-cv-10256
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
The plaintiff’s deadline to oppose the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was January 21, 2022. On January 24, she filed a 198-page counterstatement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1, adding nearly 900 new paragraphs. The plaintiff conceded at a January 27 conference that the filing did not comply with Local Civil Rule 56.1, which requires a short and concise statement of additional material facts and citations to evidence that could be admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). The plaintiff also had not filed a memorandum of law opposing summary judgment by the deadline.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) permits sanctions for failing to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. The court stated that imposing sanctions is within the judge’s discretion. It found that the plaintiff had failed both to follow the court’s scheduling order and to comply with Local Rule 56.1.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court struck the plaintiff’s Rule 56.1 counterstatement. It directed the plaintiff to file an amended counterstatement by February 7, 2022. The amended filing could remove information but could not add new paragraphs, and it had to comply with Local Rule 56.1(b) and (d). The plaintiff’s counsel had to certify that the filing complied with the applicable rules.
The court also directed the plaintiff to file her opposition memorandum by February 7, 2022, and to immediately email its current draft to the defendants. The defendants did not have to respond to that draft; any reply to the filed opposition was due within three weeks after service. Judge Gregory H. Woods stated that changes to the opposition should be limited to changes reflecting the amended counterstatement and warned that the court might take further action concerning the plaintiff’s failure to follow the scheduling order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.