Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 16, 2024

De Los Santos v. Jones, Jr.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:24-cv-01354
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In De Los Santos v. Jones, Jr., Judge Cronan denied defendants’ request to postpone the initial conference for limited conflict-related discovery.

Who this affects

The order affects defendants’ request for limited discovery and postponement, Plaintiff’s counsel, and the parties’ required pretrial schedule.

What happened

In De Los Santos v. Jones, Jr., defendants asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference so they could conduct limited discovery about plaintiff’s lawyer’s representation of certain medical providers involved in plaintiff’s treatment and no-fault bill collection.

Defendants said those relationships could create a conflict of interest and affect the case’s credibility. The court denied the request to postpone the conference and did not decide in this order whether a conflict existed.

Judge John P. Cronan directed the parties to attend the scheduled telephone conference on May 22, 2024, meet and confer, file their joint submission by May 20, 2024, and be prepared to discuss the issues raised in their submissions.

The detailed version

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

Case
De Los Santos v. Jones, Jr. · No. 1:24-cv-01354
Judge
John Cronan
Date
May 16, 2024

Background

Defendants asked the Court to adjourn, or postpone, the initial pretrial conference to allow limited discovery concerning Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation of certain medical providers for collection of no-fault bills. In their letter, defendants asserted that Plaintiff’s counsel had represented Cross Bay Orthopedic Surgery, Madison RX, and Manor Med Supplies in other matters. They also described counsel’s representation of Cross Bay Orthopedic Surgery in connection with the collection of a surgery bill before Plaintiff was later represented by the same law firm.

Defendants argued that discovery was warranted to investigate the nature of these business relationships, whether a conflict of interest existed, and whether the case might be affected. Plaintiff’s counsel had argued, according to defendants’ letter, that defendants lacked standing to raise a possible conflict. The opinion does not resolve that argument or determine whether an actual conflict existed.

Ruling

The Court denied defendants’ request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference. It directed the parties to appear at the scheduled telephonic conference on May 22, 2024, at 3:00 p.m.; meet and confer; and file their joint submission by May 20, 2024, as required by an earlier order. The parties were also directed to be prepared to discuss the issues raised in their recent submissions. The Clerk was directed to terminate the requests pending at Docket Numbers 6 and 10.

Judge John P. Cronan’s order addressed scheduling and the request for limited discovery; it did not decide the underlying conflict-of-interest allegations or the merits of the case.

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.