Doe v. Helen Hayes Hospital
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Doe v. Helen Hayes Hospital, Judge Halpern denied Doe’s requested relief but extended the parties’ filing deadlines by one week.
Jane Doe and the defendants, because the order denied the requested changes to the defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement and changed the parties’ filing deadlines.
What happened
In Doe v. Helen Hayes Hospital, Jane Doe asked for 30 more days to respond to the defendants’ statement of facts used for summary judgment, to strike that statement, or to pause the related deadlines. She argued that the defendants’ statement did not follow the judge’s formatting instructions and did not identify facts supporting their defenses.
The defendants opposed those requests but agreed to a one-week extension. They argued that their statement substantially followed the court’s instructions, gave Doe enough information to respond, and should not be replaced or struck at that stage.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Doe’s requested relief. He extended the deadlines by one week: Doe’s response and any additional statement of facts were due February 21, 2023; the defendants’ responses and related filings were due February 28; and Doe’s opposition was due March 7.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Helen Hayes Hospital · No. 7:20-cv-02331
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 13, 2023
Background
Jane Doe sought relief concerning the defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement. A Rule 56.1 statement is a filing that lists facts a party contends are not genuinely disputed for purposes of a summary-judgment motion. Doe requested a 30-day extension to serve her response and counterstatement, asked the Court to strike the defendants’ statement, or alternatively requested a stay of the deadlines for pre-motion submissions and the Rule 56.1 statement.
Doe argued that the defendants’ statement did not follow the Court’s instruction to organize facts by claim and defense. She also argued that the defendants failed to identify facts relevant to their affirmative defenses and improperly included disputed facts. The defendants opposed the requested relief, asserting that their 12-page statement substantially complied with the Court’s instructions and that Doe had enough space and time to respond. The defendants consented only to a one-week extension.
Ruling
The application was denied. The Court extended the existing deadlines by one week: Doe’s responses to the defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement and any counterstatement of facts were due February 21, 2023; the defendants’ responses to any counterstatement, pre-motion letter, and Rule 56.1 statement were due February 28, 2023; and Doe’s opposition to the defendants’ pre-motion letter was due March 7, 2023. The order addressed the summary-judgment filing schedule and the parties’ Rule 56.1 submissions; it did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.