Alexander v. New York City Department of Education
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-07023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Alexander v. New York City Department of Education: Judge Furman moved the conference to telephone format and required a joint status letter.
The parties and their counsel in the case, particularly counsel responsible for submitting the joint status letter and preparing for the scheduled conference.
What happened
In Alexander v. New York City Department of Education, the court addressed how the upcoming conference would proceed because of COVID-19. It said the conference would not be held in person.
The parties’ lawyers must submit a joint status letter of no more than five pages before the conference. The letter must cover the case, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial. Existing dates and deadlines remain in effect unless the court changes them.
After reviewing the letter, Judge Jesse M. Furman will decide whether to cancel the conference and address other deadlines. If the conference occurs, it will be held by telephone.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-07023
- Jesse Furman
- June 7, 2022
Order
Because of the circumstances surrounding COVID-19, the court ordered that the upcoming conference would not be held in person. The court instructed counsel to submit a joint status letter through the electronic filing system by the Thursday before the scheduled conference and to state whether the parties could proceed without a conference.
Required Joint Status Letter
The letter may not exceed five pages. It must separately address:
- The nature of the action and the principal defenses;
- Why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including specified citizenship information when jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship;
- All existing deadlines, due dates, and cutoff dates;
- Outstanding motions;
- Discovery already completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
- Prior settlement discussions, including dates, participants, and approximate duration;
- Whether the parties have discussed alternative dispute resolution and whether a magistrate-judge settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator would be appropriate; and
- Other information that might help advance the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
Conference and Deadlines
After reviewing the joint status letter, the court would issue an order stating whether the conference was canceled and addressing other relevant deadlines and information. If the conference took place, it would be conducted by telephone, possibly at a different time. Counsel were instructed to provide telephone-conference availability during the week of the scheduled conference if they believed a conference was appropriate.
Unless the court ordered otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines remained in effect, including any deadlines for summary-judgment motions or a proposed joint pretrial order identified in the case-management and scheduling order. The opinion is a case-management order and does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.