Moreno v. City of New York
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:22-cv-03358
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Moreno v. City of New York, Judge Rochon ordered mediation and set pretrial requirements without deciding the claims.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, and their counsel are affected by the mediation, discovery, conference, filing, notice, and scheduling requirements in the order.
What happened
Moreno v. City of New York was assigned to automatic mediation after the defendants file an answer, and initial discovery must follow the court’s protocol for represented employment cases.
If mediation does not succeed, the lawyers must attend an initial pretrial conference, file a joint status letter, and submit a proposed case-management and scheduling plan. The order also sets requirements for discussing settlement, discovery, deadlines, jurisdiction, venue, and other case issues.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued this case-management order on October 12, 2022. The order does not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
The detailed version
- Moreno v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-03358
- Robert Lehrburger
- Oct. 12, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a case-management order, not a decision on the parties’ underlying claims. The court acted after receiving the parties’ joint letter dated October 12, 2022.
Mediation and Discovery
Under the Southern District of New York’s standing administrative order for employment-discrimination cases, the case was designated for automatic referral to the court’s mediation program after the defendants file an answer. Initial discovery must follow the Pilot Discovery Protocols for Counseled Employment Cases.
Pretrial Conference
If mediation is unsuccessful, counsel for all parties must appear for an initial pretrial conference on February 2, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. Unless the court grants permission through a letter-motion filed before the conference, each pretrial conference must be attended by the attorney who will serve as principal trial counsel.
Required Submissions and Discussions
The parties must confer before the conference about settlement and the subjects covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which governs pretrial case management. No later than seven calendar days before the conference, they must file a joint letter on the court’s electronic filing system and attach a proposed civil case-management plan and scheduling order using the court’s form.
The joint letter may not exceed three pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of parties for diversity jurisdiction may be placed in an appendix. To the extent the information differs from the parties’ earlier letter, the submission must address:
- the nature of the action, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - outstanding motions; - discovery already completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of prior settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - whether the parties believe a settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator would be appropriate; and - other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
Other Procedures
If the case is settled or otherwise terminated before the conference, counsel need not file the joint letter or appear if proof of termination is filed on the docket before the conference date. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn the conference must be made by letter-motion filed at least 48 hours beforehand and must include the information specified in the order.
Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly provide the order and the judge’s individual rules to counsel who had not appeared, or directly to a party if counsel’s identity was unknown, and must file proof that notice was provided.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered the case-management directives described above. The opinion does not grant or deny a merits motion and does not resolve the parties’ claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.