Thompson v. Shutterstock, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-04155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thompson v. Shutterstock, Inc., Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 25, 2023.
The parties and their counsel in Thompson v. Shutterstock, Inc.—Phillip Thompson, Shutterstock, Inc., Heidi Garfield, Sara Birmingham, Andre Graham, and Leia LeFay—must comply with the case-management instructions.
What happened
Thompson v. Shutterstock, Inc. is a case brought by Phillip Thompson against Shutterstock, Inc. and four individual defendants. The notice states that the case was reassigned to a new judge, while prior orders, dates, and deadlines remain in effect unless changed.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 25, 2023. The letter must update the court on counsel, the case and its key issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, possible alternative dispute resolution, and the expected trial length. The Clerk was also directed to terminate ECF No. 10.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the notice on August 11, 2023. This order manages the case and does not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. Shutterstock, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04155
- Clarke
- Aug. 11, 2023
Nature of the Order
This is a case-management order announcing that the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. It does not address the merits of Phillip Thompson’s claims against Shutterstock, Inc., Heidi Garfield, Sara Birmingham, Andre Graham, and Leia LeFay.
Directions to the Parties
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by August 25, 2023. The letter may not exceed five pages, apart from any appendix needed for lengthy jurisdictional information. It must separately address:
- counsel’s names and current contact information; - the nature of the case, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - the basis for federal jurisdiction and venue, including citizenship information required for diversity jurisdiction; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - conferences that occurred or were scheduled; - outstanding motions and the relief requested; - pending appeals; - discovery already completed and discovery still needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of settlement discussions without 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 had already been settled or otherwise terminated before the deadline, the parties would not have to submit the letter or appear, provided proof of termination was filed on the docket.
Other Instructions and Disposition
The court stated that its Individual Rules do not require pre-motion letters and adjourned all deadlines for those letters. Requests to extend deadlines or adjourn conferences must be made by letter-motion filed on the electronic docket at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and must include the information specified in the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 10.
The order preserves prior orders, dates, and deadlines unless the court later orders otherwise. It is a procedural case-management order, not a ruling on the merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.