The Doe Fund, Inc. v. Berkley Insurance Company
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-09852
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The Doe Fund v. Berkley Insurance, Judge Clarke reassigned the case, adjourned one conference, and ordered a joint status letter by August 15.
The Doe Fund, Inc., Berkley Insurance Company, and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, the adjourned conference, the joint-letter requirement, and the procedures for requesting extensions or adjournments.
What happened
The Doe Fund, Inc. v. Berkley Insurance Company was reassigned to a new judge. The reassignment notice did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The court kept prior orders, dates, and deadlines in effect, except that it adjourned the August 9, 2023 status conference. It ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 15, 2023, addressing the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement, possible mediation, and trial issues.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the notice. The order also explained how requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences must be made.
The detailed version
- The Doe Fund, Inc. v. Berkley Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-09852
- Clarke
- Aug. 1, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is an administrative case-management order notifying the parties that the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order does not decide the merits of the dispute or rule on a substantive motion.
Effect of Reassignment
The court stated that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court later ordered otherwise, including the order identified as ECF No. 27. The court adjourned the status conference that had been scheduled for August 9, 2023, at 10:30 a.m.
Required Joint Letter
The parties were ordered to file a joint letter through the court’s electronic filing system no later than August 15, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of entities could be placed in an appendix outside the page limit.
The letter had to address counsel’s names and contact information; the nature, defenses, and important legal and factual issues in the case; the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue; existing deadlines; whether a status conference was requested; previously scheduled conferences; outstanding motions; pending appeals; completed and remaining discovery; prior settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; possible alternative dispute resolution; the estimated trial length; and 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 file the letter or appear, so long as proof of termination was filed before the deadline using the appropriate electronic-filing event.
Extensions and Adjournments
The court stated that requests to extend a deadline or adjourn a conference had to be made by 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 opposing party’s position, and, when applicable, the date of the parties’ next court appearance. Unless the parties were told that a conference had been adjourned, it would proceed as scheduled.
Disposition
Judge Clarke ordered the reassignment-related case-management steps described above. The opinion contains no ruling on the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.