Brady v. Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-02061
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brady v. Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc., Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 22, 2023.
Susan Brady, Studio Light Inc., Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc., and their counsel are affected by the reassignment, joint-letter requirement, and scheduling instructions.
What happened
Brady v. Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. involves plaintiffs Susan Brady and Studio Light Inc. and defendant Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The case was reassigned to a new judge. The parties were ordered to file a joint letter of no more than five pages by August 22, 2023, covering the case’s status, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and estimated trial length.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also stated that prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the Court ordered otherwise. The order explains how requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences must be submitted.
The detailed version
- Brady v. Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02061
- Clarke
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
Susan Brady and Studio Light Inc. are the plaintiffs, and Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. is the defendant. The opinion is a notice of reassignment and does not describe or decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Court’s Order
The case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect. The Court also directed counsel to familiarize themselves with the judge’s individual rules and practices.
The parties must file a joint letter on the electronic docket by August 22, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, except that lengthy information about the citizenship of certain entities may be placed in an appendix outside the page limit. The letter must separately address:
- Counsel’s names and current contact information; - The nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - Why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including specified citizenship information when jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship; - Existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - Previously scheduled conferences that have not occurred; - Outstanding motions and the relief they seek; - Pending appeals; - Discovery already completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - The status of prior settlement discussions without disclosing 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.
If the case has already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel do not need to file the joint letter or appear, as long as appropriate proof of termination is filed on the docket before the deadline.
The Court further ordered that requests to extend a deadline or postpone a conference must be made by a letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The submission must provide the original and requested new dates, information about earlier requests, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and other specified scheduling information. Unless the Court notifies counsel that a conference has been postponed, it will take place as scheduled.
Disposition and Significance
This was an administrative and scheduling order. The Court did not rule on the merits of the parties’ dispute, grant or deny a substantive motion, or enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.