ARK104 Doe v. National Boy Scouts of America Foundation
- Clarke
- 1:20-cv-01476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In ARK 104 Doe v. National Boy Scouts of America Foundation, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter.
The parties and their counsel were affected by the reassignment, the continuing effect of prior orders and deadlines, and the requirement to file a joint status letter by August 18, 2023.
What happened
In ARK 104 Doe v. National Boy Scouts of America Foundation, the court announced that the case had been reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court said that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless changed later.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 18, 2023. The letter had to summarize the case, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, bankruptcy proceedings, pending motions and appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and the expected trial length.
Judge Clarke also explained the procedures for requesting extensions or postponements. This order addressed case management and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- ARK104 Doe v. National Boy Scouts of America Foundation · No. 1:20-cv-01476
- Clarke
- Aug. 4, 2023
Background
The court stated that the case had been reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion identifies the defendants as National Boy Scouts of America Foundation, also known as The Boy Scouts of America, and others. The order did not describe the underlying claims or defenses in detail.
Order
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than August 18, 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 provide information about counsel and their contact information; the nature of the case and principal defenses; important legal and factual issues; the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue; all deadlines; the status of bankruptcy proceedings; prior and scheduled conferences and other matters for discussion; outstanding motions; pending appeals; completed and remaining discovery; prior settlement discussions without exact offers or demands; possible alternative dispute-resolution methods; the estimated trial length; and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
The court stated that no joint letter or appearance would be required if the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, provided that proof of termination was filed before the deadline. It also stated that requests to extend deadlines or postpone conferences had to be made by a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference and had to include specified information, such as the original and requested new dates, prior requests, the reason, the other side’s position, and the next scheduled court appearance when applicable.
Disposition and Significance
The order maintained existing orders, dates, and deadlines while requiring a case-status update. It did not grant or deny a merits motion, resolve any claim, or determine the parties’ rights. The opinion is therefore a procedural case-management order issued by Judge Clarke.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.