Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 19, 2022

LeDeatte v. Horizon Media

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:20-cv-10752
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
22
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In LeDeatte v. Horizon Media, Judge Rochon reassigned the case, kept prior deadlines in effect, and ordered a status letter.

Who this affects

Raven LeDeatte, who is proceeding without a lawyer, Horizon Media, Defendants, and the parties’ future case schedule.

What happened

LeDeatte v. Horizon Media is a case in which Raven LeDeatte is proceeding without a lawyer against Horizon Media. The opinion does not describe the claims or defenses.

The court reassigned the case to a new district judge. Earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect, while district-court appearances and conferences are postponed until further notice; proceedings before or directed by a magistrate judge will continue as ordered.

Judge Rochon ordered the parties to confer and required Defendants to file and serve a joint status letter within three weeks. The letter must summarize the case’s status, including deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and the expected trial length.

The detailed version

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

Case
LeDeatte v. Horizon Media · No. 1:20-cv-10752
Judge
Rochon
Date
Sept. 19, 2022

Nature of the Order

This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. The opinion does not decide the merits of the case, describe the claims or defenses in detail, or rule on any substantive motion.

Reassignment and Existing Schedule

The case was reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. Unless the court orders otherwise, all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect despite the reassignment. Any conference or oral argument before, or directed by, a magistrate judge will proceed as previously ordered. All previously scheduled appearances or conferences before the district court were postponed until the court provides further notice.

Required Joint Status Letter

The parties were ordered to confer and prepare a joint letter within three weeks after the order was filed. Defendants were ordered to file the letter on the court’s electronic filing system and serve it on pro se Plaintiff. The letter may not exceed four pages.

The court directed the letter to address, when relevant:

- The names and current contact information of counsel and pro se Plaintiff; - The nature of the case and the principal defenses; - Why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including required citizenship information for diversity jurisdiction; - All existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - Previously scheduled but not yet held court conferences and their anticipated subjects; - Outstanding motions, including their dates and requested relief; - Any pending appeals; - Discovery completed and any discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - The status of prior settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; - Whether the parties have considered a settlement conference, mediation, or a private mediator, and when such a process would be appropriate; - An estimate of the trial length; and - Any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.

If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not need to submit the letter or appear, provided that proof of termination was filed before the submission deadline.

Other Directions

Requests to extend deadlines or postpone dates not affected by the order must comply with Judge Rochon’s individual rules, including her rules for civil cases involving pro se parties. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order and Judge Rochon’s individual rules to pro se Plaintiff.

Disposition

The court entered case-management directions and did not reach the underlying legal issues. The order is therefore classified as a procedural order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 22-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.