Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. v. Mercury Systems, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:24-cv-00336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leidos Security Detection & Automation v. Mercury Systems, Judge Castel adjourned the pretrial conference to May 17, 2024, amid anticipated pleadings and motions.
Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. and Mercury Systems, Inc.; the order changes the timing of the pretrial conference while the parties address pleadings and anticipated motion practice.
What happened
Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. v. Mercury Systems, Inc. concerns a joint request to postpone an early case-management conference. Leidos had filed the complaint, later served Mercury, and the parties were still discussing possible resolution.
The parties said Mercury planned to answer and file counterclaims, while Leidos expected to seek dismissal of at least some counterclaims. They argued that holding the conference and setting a case-management plan before the pleadings were complete would be premature.
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered the conference adjourned to May 17, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. The supplied order text does not clearly state a separate ruling on the requested deadline for submitting the joint letter and proposed case-management plan.
The detailed version
- Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. v. Mercury Systems, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00336
- P. Castel
- Mar. 8, 2024
Background
Leidos filed its complaint on January 16, 2024. According to the parties’ joint letter, Leidos did not immediately formally serve Mercury because the parties were attempting to resolve their dispute. Leidos served Mercury on March 5, 2024, but the parties had not reached an agreement by the time of the letter.
The letter states that Mercury planned to respond with an answer and counterclaims. Leidos anticipated filing a motion to dismiss at least some of those expected counterclaims. The parties said that an initial pretrial conference and a case-management plan would be premature until the pleadings—the parties’ formal claims and defenses—were complete.
Request and Ruling
The parties jointly requested that the scheduled pretrial conference be postponed, and they stated that this was their first request to change dates in the case. The letter requested postponement without setting a new date. The order portion of the supplied text states: “Conference adjourned from March 28, 2024 to May 17, 2024 at 10:30 a.m.” It also states “SO ORDERED” and is dated March 8, 2024.
The supplied text does not clearly state whether the court separately granted the request to postpone the March 11 deadline for submitting a joint letter and proposed case-management plan. The letter refers to a March 18 pretrial conference, while the order portion refers to a conference being adjourned from March 28. This creates an ambiguity in the supplied materials.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.