Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 11, 2023

Enlarged City School District of Middletown v. Pacific Employers Insurance…

Full caption

Enlarged City School District of Middletown v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:22-cv-06391
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Enlarged City School District v. Pacific Employers, Judge Halpern required a revised joint fact statement and adjourned the case-management conference.

Who this affects

The parties in the case, whose Rule 56.1 filings must be revised and jointly submitted by October 25, 2023; the scheduled case-management conference was also adjourned.

What happened

In Enlarged City School District of Middletown v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, the court found that the parties’ fact statements did not comply with its rules for summary-judgment practice.

The court said it would not accept the statements attached to the parties’ pre-motion letters. It ordered the parties to meet, prepare one revised joint statement, and file it by October 25, 2023. The statement must include all parties’ facts, counterstatements, and responses, and must be no longer than 25 pages. The parties did not need to refile their pre-motion letters, but their responses were due with the revised statement.

Judge Halpern also adjourned the October 24, 2023 case-management conference without setting a new date. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying insurance dispute or any summary-judgment motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Enlarged City School District of Middletown v. Pacific Employers Insurance… · No. 7:22-cv-06391
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Oct. 11, 2023

Background

The parties had attached statements of facts to their pre-motion letters concerning anticipated summary-judgment practice. A Rule 56.1 statement is a filing that identifies the material facts a party says are undisputed, along with any opposing responses.

Court’s Order

The Court stated that it would not accept the Rule 56.1 statements attached to the parties’ pre-motion letters because they did not comply with the Court’s Individual Practices.

The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a single revised joint Rule 56.1 Statement by October 25, 2023. The revised filing must include all parties’ statements of fact, counterstatements of fact, and responses to each statement. It must be limited to 25 pages and comply with the Court’s rules and the rules governing summary-judgment motion practice.

The parties were not required to refile their pre-motion letters. Their responses to those letters were due on October 25, 2023, together with the revised joint statement. The Court also adjourned the case-management conference scheduled for October 24, 2023, without setting a new date.

Effect of the Order

This was a case-management and filing-compliance order. It did not decide the merits of the insurance dispute, rule on a summary-judgment motion, or determine whether any fact was actually undisputed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.