McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-01138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet was reassigned, and Judge Clarke set case-management filing and conference instructions.
Shauna McKenzie-Morris, V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc., and the other defendants; the order governs the parties’ upcoming conference and required filings.
What happened
In McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, the case was reassigned to Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion does not address the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
The court kept all existing dates and deadlines in place, except that it rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for September 15, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., to be held by Microsoft Teams. The parties were ordered to file a joint letter and proposed case-management and scheduling plan one week before the conference.
Judge Clarke required the joint letter to address the case’s issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, and other information relevant to moving the case toward settlement or trial. The order also explained how to request an extension or adjournment.
The detailed version
- McKenzie-Morris v. V.P. Records Retail Outlet, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01138
- Clarke
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
The case was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The opinion is a notice of reassignment and case-management order; it does not decide the underlying dispute.
Court’s directions
Unless the court later orders otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines remain in effect. The court rescheduled the initial pretrial conference for September 15, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. The conference will be held before Judge Clarke through Microsoft Teams.
The parties were ordered to file on the court’s electronic filing system, known as ECF, a joint letter and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order attached as an exhibit. The filing was due no later than one week before the initial pretrial conference, and the parties were directed to use the court’s form.
The joint letter may not exceed five pages, excluding any appendix containing lengthy jurisdictional information. It must separately address: whether the parties believe the initial conference can be skipped; the nature of the action, principal defenses, and important legal and factual issues; why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper; all deadlines and cutoff dates; outstanding motions; discovery already completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement discussions; the status of settlement discussions without exact offers or demands; and any other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial. If diversity jurisdiction is asserted, the letter must explain the basis for diversity and provide the required citizenship information for relevant entities and their owners or members.
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, the parties did not have to submit the joint letter or appear if proof of termination was filed before the conference using the appropriate filing event. Requests for an extension or adjournment had to be made by letter-motion filed on ECF at least 48 hours before the applicable deadline or conference and had to include the information specified by the court. Unless the parties were notified that the conference had been adjourned, it would proceed as scheduled.
Disposition
Judge Clarke issued the reassignment and case-management directions described above. The opinion does not grant or deny a merits motion and does not resolve any claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.