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)
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?