Doe v. New York University

Filing 75

ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 74 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application granted in part and denied in part. The status conference scheduled for May 18, 2022 is adjourned to May 23, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. The joint status lette r requested in the case management plan and scheduling order entered on August 30, 2021, Dkt. No. 50, is due no later than May 16, 2022. Except as expressly modified by this order, the case management plan entered by the Court on August 30, 2021, Dk t. No. 50, remains in full force and effect. NYU has not filed a pre-motion conference letter, as required by the case management plan and the Court will not act on a hypothetical request. Any request for a pre-motion conference must comply with h e Court's Individual Rule 2(C) and must be filed in accordance with the terms of the case management plan. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 74. SO ORDERED. Status Conference set for 5/23/2022 at 03:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/21/2022) (ama)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-01343-GHW Document 75 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 2 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/21/2022 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 31 West 52nd Street | New York, NY 10019-6131 | tel 212.858.1000 | fax 212.858.1500 MEMORANDUM ENDORSED Jeffrey P. Metzler tel: +1.212.858.1153 jeffrey.metzler@pillsburylaw.com April 21, 2022 VIA ECF Honorable Gregory H. Woods United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 2260 New York, NY 10007 Re: John Doe v. New York University; No. 20-cv-01343 (GHW) Dear Judge Woods: Pursuant to your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice, Defendant New York University (“NYU”) hereby submits this letter to request approval to adjourn the status conference currently scheduled for May 18, 2022 (“the Conference”). (See ECF No. 59). Undersigned counsel will be participating in a trial on that same day and will be unable to attend the Conference; accordingly, NYU requests that the Conference be adjourned until the week of Monday, May 23, 2022. In addition, NYU intends to request a pre-motion conference relating to a motion for summary judgment in accordance with the Case Management Plan and Your Honor’s Individual Rule 2(C) and proposes that the Conference could also serve as the summary judgment pre-motion conference. Accordingly, if NYU’s request for an adjournment of the Conference is granted, NYU requests that the current deadline for summary judgment of June 1, 2022, be adjourned until two weeks after the Conference, consistent with the current schedule. Counsel for Plaintiff does not object to this request. www.pillsburylaw.com Case 1:20-cv-01343-GHW Document 75 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 2 Honorable Gregory H. Woods April 21, 2022 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jeffrey P. Metzler Jeffrey P. Metzler Counsel for Defendant cc: All counsel of record Application granted in part and denied in part. The status conference scheduled for May 18, 2022 is adjourned to May 23, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. The joint status letter requested in the case management plan and scheduling order entered on August 30, 2021, Dkt. No. 50, is due no later than May 16, 2022. Except as expressly modified by this order, the case management plan entered by the Court on August 30, 2021, Dkt. No. 50, remains in full force and effect. NYU has not filed a pre-motion conference letter, as required by the case management plan and the Court will not act on a hypothetical request. Any request for a pre-motion conference must comply with the Court’s Individual Rule 2(C) and must be filed in accordance with the terms of the case management plan.. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 74. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 21, 2022 New York, New York www.pillsburylaw.com _____________________________________ GREGORY H. WOODS United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?