Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-02489
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., Judge Gorenstein scheduled oral argument on the pending motion to amend.
Donna Wood, Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., their attorneys or unrepresented representatives, and other hearing attendees were affected by the scheduled oral argument and the court’s attendance and filing instructions.
What happened
In Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., the court scheduled oral argument on a pending motion to amend for September 15, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6-B of the Southern District of New York courthouse.
The court said the parties should arrive early, follow courthouse COVID-related entry rules, and notify all other attorneys or unrepresented parties of the hearing. A party facing hardship from appearing in person could request permission to appear remotely. The parties were also told to be ready to discuss authorities cited in their briefs and Hargrove v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc.; supplemental letters about that case were permitted by the stated deadline.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the scheduling order. The opinion did not decide the motion to amend or the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02489
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 6, 2022
What the order did
The court scheduled oral argument on the pending motion to amend, identified as Docket No. 278. The argument was set for September 15, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 6-B at the United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.
Instructions to the parties
The court stated that this was the only matter scheduled for that date and time and directed attendees to arrive sufficiently early. Counsel and other attendees were expected to follow COVID-related courthouse entry restrictions posted on the court’s website. If appearing in person would be a hardship, a party could file a letter asking for permission to appear remotely.
Each attorney or unrepresented party was directed to ensure that all other attorneys or unrepresented parties knew about the hearing. Requests to postpone the argument had to comply with Judge Gorenstein’s rules.
Issues for argument
The parties were told to be prepared to answer questions about relevant cases cited in their briefs and about Hargrove v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc., 295 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2022). A party wishing to submit a supplemental letter about Hargrove was permitted to do so no later than two business days before oral argument.
Disposition and scope
This was a scheduling and case-management order. It did not state a ruling on the motion to amend and did not decide the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.