Searcy v. Battery Park City Authority
- Clarke
- 1:21-cv-03725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Searcy v. Battery Park City Authority, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 9, 2023.
Searcy, Battery Park City Authority, and their counsel were required to comply with the joint-letter and case-management requirements.
What happened
In Searcy v. Battery Park City Authority, the case was reassigned to Jessica G. L. Clarke, United States District Judge. The order states that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless the Court orders otherwise.
The Court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 9, 2023, addressing the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy jurisdictional information could be placed in an appendix.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also set procedures for extension or adjournment requests. This order managed the case and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Searcy v. Battery Park City Authority · No. 1:21-cv-03725
- Clarke
- July 26, 2023
Nature of the Order
The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The Court stated that, unless it ordered otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect despite the reassignment.
Required Joint Letter
The Court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by August 9, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages and had to address, in separate paragraphs:
- The names and current contact information of counsel, if changed;
- The nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues;
- Why federal jurisdiction and venue were proper, including specified citizenship information if jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship;
- Existing deadlines, due dates, and cutoff dates;
- Previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred and the matters to be discussed;
- Outstanding motions, including their dates and requested relief;
- Pending appeals;
- Discovery already completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions;
- The status of the discovery dispute described in docket entry 29;
- The status of prior settlement discussions, without stating exact offers or demands;
- Discussions about alternative dispute resolution, including a settlement conference, the District’s Mediation Program, or a private mediator;
- The estimated trial length; and
- Any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not have to file the letter or appear if they filed the required proof of termination before the deadline.
Extensions and Adjournments
The Court directed that requests to extend a deadline or postpone a conference be made through a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The request had to identify the original and requested new dates, prior extension or adjournment requests and their results, the reason for the request, the other side’s position, and, when applicable, the next scheduled court appearance.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Clarke entered a case-management order requiring a joint status update and establishing procedures for requests to change dates. The opinion did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.