Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Consolidated Edison Company of New…
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-09730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Philadelphia Indemnity v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered a joint status letter by August 29, 2023.
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and their counsel were required to comply with the joint-letter and case-management instructions unless the case had already been terminated and proof of termination was filed.
What happened
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The court said that earlier orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless it ordered otherwise.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by August 29, 2023. The letter must update the court on counsel, the case and its issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, conferences, motions, appeals, discovery, settlement discussions, and the estimated trial length.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also explained how to request extensions or adjournments and said the parties need not file the letter or appear if the case had already been terminated and proof of termination was filed by the deadline. This order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Consolidated Edison Company of New… · No. 1:22-cv-09730
- Clarke
- Aug. 15, 2023
Nature of the Order
This was a reassignment and case-management order, not a decision on the parties’ underlying dispute. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke stated that the case had been reassigned to her and that all prior orders, dates, and deadlines would remain in effect unless the court ordered otherwise.
Joint Status Letter
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the electronic docket no later than August 29, 2023. The letter could not exceed five pages, except that a lengthy jurisdictional-citizenship appendix would not count toward the page limit. The letter had to 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 the required citizenship information for entities in cases based on diversity jurisdiction; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - previously scheduled conferences that had not occurred; - outstanding motions and the relief they seek; - pending appeals; - completed and remaining discovery, including depositions and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; - the status of prior settlement discussions without exact offers or demands; - the estimated trial length; and - any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial.
Extensions and Adjournments
The court stated that requests for extensions or adjournments could be made only through a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket. The request had to be received at least 48 hours before the relevant deadline or conference and had to provide specified information, including the original and requested new dates, prior requests, the reason for the request, the opposing party’s position, and any next scheduled court appearance. Unless the court notified counsel that a conference had been adjourned, the conference would proceed as scheduled.
Disposition
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to file the joint letter or appear, provided that proof of termination was filed before the deadline. The court did not grant or deny a merits motion and did not resolve the insurance dispute. The order was signed by Jessica G. L. Clarke, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.