Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 25, 2023

Cardiovascular Research Foundation v. Willis Towers Watson Southeast, Inc.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-01990
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Cardiovascular Research Foundation v. Willis Towers Watson Southeast, Inc.: Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 14, 2023.

Who this affects

Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Willis Towers Watson Southeast, Inc., and their counsel were required to follow the reassignment, status-letter, filing, and scheduling instructions.

What happened

In Cardiovascular Research Foundation v. Willis Towers Watson Southeast, Inc., the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court said that existing orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect, but postponed any scheduled conference or oral argument until further notice.

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 14, 2023. The letter must update the court on counsel, the case and its issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, estimated trial length, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also explained that no letter or appearance would be required if the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated and proof of that termination was filed by the deadline. This order addressed case administration and did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cardiovascular Research Foundation v. Willis Towers Watson Southeast, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01990
Judge
Clarke
Date
July 25, 2023

Background

The case was reassigned to Jessica G. L. Clarke, a United States District Judge. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or defenses. It states that, unless the court later orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain effective. Any currently scheduled conference or oral argument before the court was adjourned pending further order.

Order to Update the Court

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic filing system no later than August 14, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, although an appendix could be used for lengthy information about the citizenship of members, shareholders, partners, or trustees when relevant to diversity jurisdiction.

The letter must separately address:

- the names and current contact information of counsel; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and important legal and factual issues; - the basis for jurisdiction and venue, including the required citizenship information for entities in diversity cases; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery already completed, including depositions taken and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - whether the parties had discussed a settlement conference, the District’s Mediation Program, or a private mediator, and when such a process might be appropriate; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help the court move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.

If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not need to file the letter or appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination was filed before the deadline.

Other Instructions and Disposition

The court directed the parties to use a letter-motion filed electronically for any request to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference. Such a request had to be received at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and had to provide the original and requested new dates, information about prior requests, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the next scheduled court appearance. Unless the parties were notified that a conference had been adjourned, it would occur as scheduled.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke’s order was a case-management order. It did not resolve the merits of the dispute, dismiss any claim, or grant or deny a dispositive motion.

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.