P.T. v. The Rockefeller University
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-06740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In P.T. v. The Rockefeller University, Judge Furman set case deadlines and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Count Two.
The four plaintiffs—P.T., J.A.T., J.T., and M.V.—and The Rockefeller University were subject to the case-management deadlines. The defendant obtained an order granting its motion to dismiss Count Two, although the written opinion does not state the reasons or further details of that disposition.
What happened
In P.T. v. The Rockefeller University, the court entered a plan for managing the case after the parties exchanged documents and information during settlement discussions. The plan set deadlines for amended pleadings, initial disclosures, discovery, and other pretrial steps.
The order required fact discovery to finish by November 4, 2022, set a November 9, 2022 pretrial conference, and estimated a seven-day jury trial. It also required the parties to submit proposed orders concerning a protective order and the plaintiffs’ anonymous proceeding.
Judge Furman also granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Count Two of the amended complaint for the reasons stated during the conference. The court directed the clerk to terminate that motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- P.T. v. The Rockefeller University · No. 1:21-cv-06740
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 26, 2022
Nature of the order
The court entered a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order submitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3). The order established procedures and deadlines for moving the case toward settlement or trial. The opinion text does not describe the claims in the case, other than referring to Count Two of the amended complaint.
Case-management requirements
The order states that the parties had already exchanged documents and information in connection with ongoing settlement discussions. It set August 5, 2022, as the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings or add parties, unless the court granted permission. Initial disclosures were due July 21, 2022.
Fact discovery was to be completed by November 4, 2022. The order provided procedures for document requests, interrogatories, depositions, requests for admission, discovery disputes, and any expert discovery. It required counsel to meet in person for at least one hour to discuss settlement within 14 days after fact discovery closed. The order also stated that the case was to be tried to a jury and that the current estimate for trial length was seven days.
The parties were required to submit a proposed protective order by August 8, 2022, and a proposed order concerning the plaintiffs’ proceeding anonymously by May 15, 2022. The next pretrial conference was scheduled for November 9, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. The order stated that its dates could be changed only by further court order for good cause, except for certain interim discovery deadlines that could be extended with the written consent of all parties.
Motion to dismiss
At the end of the order, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Count Two of the amended complaint, identified as ECF No. 25. The court gave no reasoning in the written text; it stated that the reasons were provided on the record during the conference held earlier that day. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 25. Because the motion challenged Count Two under Rule 12, this is classified as a procedural order rather than a decision on the underlying merits.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.