Natural Resources Defense Council v. Granholm
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-09127
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. Dan Brouillette, Judge Furman reassigned the cases and ordered status letters by April 18, 2022.
The parties and counsel in both cases—Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Dan Brouillette et al. and State of New York et al. v. Dan Brouillette et al.—were affected by the reassignment, status-letter requirement, and instructions about deadlines and court appearances.
What happened
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Dan Brouillette and State of New York v. Dan Brouillette are two cases reassigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman in the Southern District of New York. The order does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.
The court kept existing dates and deadlines in place, but postponed any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before Judge Furman. It required the parties to file a joint letter addressing counsel information, the cases’ nature, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible mediation, and estimated trial length.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the joint letter by April 18, 2022, unless the cases had already been terminated and proof of termination was filed. The order also explains how to request an extension or adjournment.
The detailed version
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. Granholm · No. 1:20-cv-09127
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2022
Nature of the Order
The order concerns the reassignment of two cases to Judge Jesse M. Furman. It does not decide the underlying legal claims, defenses, jurisdiction, or venue. The opinion text identifies the defendants as Dan Brouillette et al.; the supplied case name refers to Granholm, but that name does not appear in the opinion’s caption.
Court’s Directives
Unless the court ordered otherwise, existing dates and deadlines were to remain in effect after reassignment. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before Judge Furman was adjourned pending further order, except for appearances scheduled before the assigned magistrate judge. The court directed all counsel to become familiar with Judge Furman’s individual rules.
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by April 18, 2022. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to address, in separate paragraphs:
- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the cases and principal defenses; - why jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery completed, including each party’s depositions and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - prior settlement discussions; - whether the parties had considered a settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help move the cases toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
Termination and Extensions
If a case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter if a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline using the appropriate electronic filing event. Requests for extensions or adjournments had to be made by letter-motion filed at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and had to provide the information specified in the order. The court stated that a conference would take place as scheduled unless counsel were notified that it had been adjourned.
Disposition
Judge Furman entered the order and required the joint status letter. The text does not state any ruling on the merits or disposition of either case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.