Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 4, 2023

Tejada v. United States

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:22-cv-01135
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Tejada v. United States, Judge Gorenstein granted the parties’ request to stay discovery pending mediation and required a report after mediation.

Who this affects

The parties to the personal-injury action—Tejada and the United States—were affected because discovery was stayed and the case was referred to mediation.

What happened

In Tejada v. United States, the parties were involved in a personal-injury lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Expert discovery was scheduled to end on August 7, 2023, and the parties had exchanged expert reports but had not conducted expert depositions. They believed settlement discussions might resolve the case. The parties jointly asked the court to pause discovery and refer the case for a settlement conference.

The court granted the application. It stayed the case while mediation was pending and stated that it would refer the case to the court’s mediation program. The court also said it would withdraw the mediation referral if mediation was unsuccessful.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered the parties to report to the court within 10 days after mediation ended. The opinion does not state whether mediation ultimately resolved the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Tejada v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-01135
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Aug. 4, 2023

Background

Tejada brought a personal-injury action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The parties told the court that expert discovery was scheduled to conclude on August 7, 2023. They had exchanged expert reports but had not yet taken expert depositions.

Request

The parties jointly requested a temporary stay of discovery and a referral to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. They said that settlement negotiations at that stage could lead to a consensual resolution before the parties incurred additional expert-discovery costs. The request cited the court’s authority to stay proceedings while settlement discussions took place.

Ruling

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the application. The case was stayed pending the outcome of mediation. The court stated that it would refer the case to its mediation program and would withdraw the referral if mediation was unsuccessful. The parties were ordered to report to the court within 10 days after mediation concluded. The opinion does not state the outcome of the mediation or resolve the underlying personal-injury claims.

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.