Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 18, 2023

Lazaar v. The Anthem Companies, Inc.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-03075
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lazaar v. The Anthem Companies, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by July 31, 2023.

Who this affects

The parties and their counsel in Lazaar v. The Anthem Companies, Inc.; the order required them to provide a joint case-status update and follow the court’s procedures for extensions or adjournments.

What happened

In Lazaar v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., the court announced that the case had been reassigned to a new judge. It stated that all earlier orders, dates, and deadlines—including Docket 52—would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise.

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter through the court’s electronic filing system by July 31, 2023. The letter, limited to five pages, had to update the court on counsel’s contact information, the case’s issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible mediation, and the expected trial length.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also explained procedures for requesting extensions or adjournments. If the case had already ended, the parties did not have to file the letter or appear if they filed proof of termination before the deadline. The order did not decide the dispute’s merits.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lazaar v. The Anthem Companies, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03075
Judge
Clarke
Date
July 18, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is a notice of reassignment and case-management order. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke stated that the case had been reassigned to her. Unless the court ordered otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remained in effect, including Docket 52.

Required Joint Status Letter

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter through the court’s electronic filing system no later than July 31, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain entities could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit.

The letter had to address twelve subjects:

  1. The names and current contact information of counsel;
  2. The nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues;
  3. The basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including the required citizenship information if jurisdiction rested on diversity of citizenship;
  4. Existing deadlines and cutoff dates;
  5. Previously scheduled court conferences that had not occurred;
  6. Outstanding motions and the relief sought;
  7. Pending appeals;
  8. Discovery completed and any discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
  9. The status of settlement discussions without exact offers or demands;
  10. Whether the parties had considered a settlement conference, the district’s mediation program, or a private mediator;
  11. An estimate of the trial length; and
  12. Other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.

Other Procedures and Disposition

The order stated that, if the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter or appear if a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline. It also required requests for extensions or adjournments to be made by a letter-motion filed through the electronic filing system at least 48 hours before the applicable deadline or conference, with specified information about the requested change, prior requests, the reason, the opposing party’s position, and any next scheduled appearance.

Judge Clarke did not rule on the underlying claims or defenses. The order addressed reassignment and case administration.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.