Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 1, 2023

Warner v. Hospital for Special Surgery Ambulatory Surgery Center of Manhattan

Full caption

Warner v. Hospital for Special Surgery Ambulatory Surgery Center of Manhattan, LLC

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-10400
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

Warner v. Hospital was reassigned to Judge Clarke, who ordered the parties to file a case-status letter by August 14, 2023.

Who this affects

The parties and counsel in Warner’s case, who were required to follow the court’s case-management instructions and, unless the case had terminated, file a joint status letter.

What happened

In Warner v. Hospital for Special Surgery Ambulatory Surgery Center of Manhattan, LLC, the Southern District of New York announced that the case had been reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court kept prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect unless it later ordered otherwise, while postponing any scheduled conference or oral argument pending further instruction.

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 14, 2023. The letter had to describe the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, 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 Clarke also set procedures for requesting extensions or adjournments, including filing a letter-motion at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference and providing specified information. This order addressed case management and did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Warner v. Hospital for Special Surgery Ambulatory Surgery Center of Manhattan · No. 1:22-cv-10400
Judge
Clarke
Date
Aug. 1, 2023

Nature of the Order

This is a 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. Any conference or oral argument currently scheduled before the court was adjourned pending further order.

Required Joint Letter

The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by August 14, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy citizenship information could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit. The letter had to address:

- the names and current contact information of counsel; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including required citizenship information for entities when jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship; - all existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - prior and scheduled conferences, to the extent stated in the order; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery already completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement negotiations; - the status of prior settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - whether the parties had discussed alternative dispute resolution and whether a settlement conference, district mediation, or private mediation might be appropriate; - the estimated length of trial; and - any other information that might help advance the case toward settlement or trial, including dispositive or novel issues.

If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter or appear, provided that appropriate proof of termination was filed before the deadline.

Extensions and Adjournments

The court stated that requests for extensions or adjournments could be made only through a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket. The request had to be received at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and had to state the original and requested new dates, prior extension or adjournment requests and their results, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the date of the next scheduled appearance. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference had been adjourned, the conference would take place as scheduled.

Disposition and Effect

The court did not rule on the merits of the claims or defenses. It reassigned the case and issued instructions for updating the court about the case’s status and managing future deadlines.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.