Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 24, 2023

Thieriot v. Laggner

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:23-cv-01875
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Thieriot v. Laggner, Judge Clarke reassigned the case, adjourned a conference, terminated ECF 26, and ordered a status letter.

Who this affects

The parties and their counsel were affected by the reassignment, the adjournment of the pre-motion conference, the joint-letter requirement, and the procedures for seeking extensions or adjournments.

What happened

Thieriot v. Laggner was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The notice stated that earlier orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the Court ordered otherwise.

Judge Clarke adjourned the July 26, 2023 pre-motion conference because her Individual Rules did not require it, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF 26. The parties were ordered to file a joint status letter by August 4, 2023, addressing the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement, alternative dispute resolution, and trial length.

Judge Clarke also set requirements for requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.

The detailed version

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

Case
Thieriot v. Laggner · No. 1:23-cv-01875
Judge
Clarke
Date
July 24, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is a case-management order issued after the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. It does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses.

Rulings and Deadlines

The Court ordered that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the Court later ordered otherwise. The Court made one stated exception: the pre-motion conference scheduled for July 26, 2023, was adjourned because the Court’s Individual Rules did not require that conference. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF 26.

The parties were ordered to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than August 4, 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 identify counsel and current contact information; briefly describe the case, defenses, and important legal and factual issues; explain jurisdiction and venue; list deadlines and previously scheduled conferences; describe outstanding motions and pending appeals; detail completed and remaining discovery; summarize prior settlement discussions without stating exact offers or demands; address possible alternative dispute resolution; estimate trial length; and provide other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to submit the letter or appear if appropriate proof of termination was filed on the docket before the deadline. The Court also stated that extension or adjournment requests had to be made by letter-motion filed on the electronic docket at least 48 hours before the applicable deadline or conference, with specified information about the requested change, earlier requests, the reason, the opposing party’s position, and any next court appearance.

Disposition

Judge Clarke reassigned the case, adjourned the July 26 pre-motion conference, directed the Clerk to terminate ECF 26, and ordered the parties to submit the joint status letter and comply with the stated procedures. The opinion does not report a ruling on the underlying dispute.

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.