Rice v. Valnet, Inc.
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-06937
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rice v. Valnet, Inc., Judge Ho ordered counsel to submit a joint case-management letter and proposed scheduling plan.
The parties’ counsel, including counsel who had already appeared and counsel or parties who had not yet appeared, must comply with the filing, notice, scheduling, discovery, settlement, and conference requirements.
What happened
In Rice v. Valnet, Inc., the court ordered the parties’ counsel to file a joint letter and a proposed case-management and scheduling plan by October 26, 2023.
The letter must address the case’s nature and issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, motions, discovery, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, and other information that could help move the case toward settlement or trial. The order also addresses settlement-related filing requirements, requests to extend deadlines or postpone the conference, and notice to counsel or parties who had not yet appeared.
Judge Dale E. Ho did not decide the claims or defenses. The order set case-management requirements and stated that the conference would occur on November 2, 2023, unless it was adjourned or the case was terminated beforehand.
The detailed version
- Rice v. Valnet, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06937
- Ho
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
This is a case-management order in an action brought by John Curtis Rice against Valnet, Inc. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, defenses, or the parties’ positions on the merits.
Order
The court ordered counsel to file a joint letter on the electronic docket by October 26, 2023. Counsel must attach a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order as an exhibit and use the court’s form.
The joint letter, which may not exceed three pages, must separately address:
- the nature of the action, principal defenses, and major legal and factual issues; - why federal jurisdiction and venue are proper, including specified citizenship information when jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship; - existing deadlines and cutoff dates; - outstanding motions; - discovery already completed and discovery needed for meaningful settlement negotiations; - the status of settlement discussions without revealing exact offers or demands; - whether the parties have discussed alternative dispute resolution and whether a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, the District’s Mediation Program, or a private mediator would be appropriate; and - any other information that could help the court advance the case toward settlement or trial.
If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated before the November 2, 2023 conference, counsel would not have been required to submit the letter or appear, so long as proof of termination was filed on the docket before the conference date. The order also states that requests to extend a deadline or postpone the conference must be made by a letter-motion filed on the electronic docket at least two business days beforehand and must include specified information about the request and any prior requests.
Counsel who had already appeared were directed to promptly serve the order and the judge’s Individual Practices on counsel for parties who had not appeared, or on those parties personally if their counsel’s identity was unknown, and to file proof of that notice.
Disposition and Scope
Judge Dale E. Ho entered the case-management directives described above. The order does not rule on the merits, dismiss any claim, or resolve any motion concerning the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.