Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 8, 2023

Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-03074
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Ruradan v. City of New York, Judge Liman set deadlines and trial procedures for a February 12, 2024 bench trial.

Who this affects

Ruradan Corporation, the City of New York, and the other defendants in the case were affected by the scheduling deadlines and bench-trial procedures.

What happened

In Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York, the court held a conference about preparing the case for a bench trial. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.

With no objection from the parties, the court set deadlines for summary-judgment motions, responses, replies, the joint pretrial order, and motions asking the court to exclude trial evidence. The trial was scheduled to begin on February 12, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

Judge Lewis J. Liman also ordered that most witnesses controlled by a party would provide direct testimony through written declarations or affidavits, while remaining available for cross-examination if requested. The court said it could use the trial time for closing arguments based on the written record if all parties consented and no witness testimony requiring cross-examination or third-party testimony remained.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-03074
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Dec. 8, 2023

Purpose of the Order

The court issued a scheduling and trial-procedure order after a December 8, 2023 conference concerning proceedings before the bench trial. A bench trial is a trial decided by a judge rather than a jury. The order does not resolve the merits of Ruradan Corporation’s claims or the defendants’ positions.

Schedule

With no objection from the parties, the court set these deadlines:

- Summary-judgment motions were due December 22,

  1. - Responses opposing those motions were due January 19,
  2. - Replies supporting the motions were due January 26,
  3. - The joint pretrial order and motions in limine were due February 5,
  4. Motions in limine ask the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented. - Responses opposing the motions in limine were due February 9,
  5. - The bench trial was scheduled to begin February 12, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

Trial-Testimony Procedures

The court ordered that direct testimony from witnesses under a party’s control would ordinarily be presented through declarations or affidavits. Those witnesses would be made available for cross-examination upon request. The affidavits and declarations submitted in connection with summary-judgment motions, together with exhibits authenticated through them or otherwise shown to be admissible, would serve as the witnesses’ direct testimony at trial.

For good cause, a party could submit additional declarations or affidavits by January 26, 2024, for testimony not included in the summary-judgment submissions. A witness controlled by a party could not provide direct testimony for that party unless the testimony was submitted by the applicable deadline. Declarants and affiants were required to be available at trial to swear to the truth of their written statements.

Pretrial Disclosures and Possible Written-Record Proceeding

The joint pretrial order had to identify whether a party wanted a declarant or affiant to take the stand and swear to the statement. If no party requested this and no one objected, the court would not require the witness to provide that additional oath in court. Each party also had to identify witnesses offered by another party whom it wanted available for cross-examination, as well as any third-party witnesses it sought to call.

The court stated that, if all parties consented and there was no testimony requiring cross-examination or third-party testimony, it would use the trial time for closing arguments based on the evidence already in the record. The order therefore set the case’s schedule and procedures but did not enter judgment or decide the underlying legal issues.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.