Harris v. The City of New York
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-01763
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harris v. The City of New York, Judge Clarke reassigned the case and ordered an initial pretrial conference and joint case-planning submission.
Derrick Harris, The City of New York, the other named defendants, and their counsel or representatives, who were subject to the scheduling and filing requirements.
What happened
Harris v. The City of New York was reassigned to United States District Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The order said existing dates and deadlines would remain in effect unless the Court ordered otherwise.
The Court ordered the plaintiff and defense counsel to appear for an initial pretrial conference on September 26, 2023, and to file a joint letter and proposed case-management and scheduling order one week before the conference. The letter must address the case, jurisdiction, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, and other issues that could help move the case forward.
Judge Clarke also explained procedures for requesting an extension or adjournment. This order managed the case and did not decide the parties’ underlying legal claims.
The detailed version
- Harris v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01763
- Clarke
- Sept. 5, 2023
Background
The case was reassigned to Jessica G. L. Clarke, United States District Judge. The order does not describe the claims, defenses, or underlying dispute. It states that, unless the Court orders otherwise, all existing dates and deadlines remain in effect despite the reassignment.
Court’s Orders
The Court ordered counsel for the defendants and the plaintiff to appear for an initial pretrial conference on September 26, 2023, at 12:00 p.m. The conference was scheduled before Judge Clarke in Courtroom 20C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse in New York, New York.
The parties were ordered to file an electronic joint letter and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order as an exhibit to that letter no later than one week before the conference. If a joint filing was not possible, a party could file separately and explain why. The joint letter could not exceed five pages and had to address whether the conference could be skipped, the nature of the case and defenses, the principal legal and factual issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, outstanding motions, completed and needed discovery, the status of settlement discussions, and other information useful to advancing the case.
The order also stated that the parties would not need to file the joint letter or appear if the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, provided proof of termination was filed before the conference. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn the conference had to be made by letter-motion filed electronically at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference and had to include the information specified in the order.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Clarke issued case-management directives and scheduled an initial pretrial conference. The order did not rule on a motion, resolve any claim, or decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.