Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 18, 2022

Roman v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-06162
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

Roman v. New York City Department of Education: Judge Furman ordered remote conference procedures and joint case-management filings while the case proceeds with counsel.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the New York City Department of Education, the other defendants, and their counsel were affected by the requirements for the upcoming conference, joint filing, settlement discussions, discovery reporting, and possible telephone appearance.

What happened

In Melinda Maldonado Roman v. New York City Department of Education, the court addressed how the upcoming case conference would proceed during the COVID-19 situation. The opinion does not decide the claims or defenses.

Because Roman was no longer representing herself, the court directed counsel to file a joint letter and proposed case-management and scheduling order before the initial conference. The parties also had to discuss settlement, discovery, alternative dispute resolution, deadlines, and other case-management topics, and tell the court whether they could proceed without a conference.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the conference would not be held in person. If the parties could proceed without a conference, the court might enter a scheduling order without requiring appearances; otherwise, the conference would be held by telephone.

The detailed version

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

Case
Roman v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-06162
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 18, 2022

Nature of the Order

This is a case-management order. It does not decide the claims, defenses, or any pending legal issue in the underlying case.

Conference Format

Because of the COVID-19 situation, the court stated that the upcoming conference would not be held in person. The parties had to say in their joint letter whether they could proceed without a conference. If they could, the court might enter a case-management plan and scheduling order without requiring the parties to appear. If they could not, the initial conference would be held by telephone, potentially at a different time.

Required Filings and Discussions

The court ordered counsel to confer before the conference about settlement and the subjects normally addressed at a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Counsel had to file a joint letter and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, using the court’s form, no later than the Thursday of the week before the initial pretrial conference.

The joint letter could not exceed five pages. It had to describe the action and principal defenses, explain why federal jurisdiction and venue were proper, list deadlines, describe outstanding motions and completed or needed discovery, identify prior settlement discussions, address alternative dispute resolution options, and provide other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

Effect of Settlement or Termination

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to submit the letter or appear, provided that appropriate proof of termination was filed on the docket before the conference date.

Disposition

The court issued the case-management directives described above. It did not grant or deny a merits motion, dismiss the action, or reach the underlying legal questions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.