Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 11, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-01687·Unknown

Opinion

ArentFox Schiff LLP A re nt Fox 1301 Avenue of the Americas 42nd Floor Schiff New York, NY 10019 212.484.3900 MAIN 212.484.3990 FAX September 7, 2023 afslaw.com BY ECF Darrell S. Gay Honorable Paul G. Gardephe Partner United States District Court 212.457.5465 DIRECT Southern District of New York darrell.gay@afslaw.com 40 Foley Square New York. NY 10007 Nicholas L. Collins ° Attorney Re: Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury, et al., 212.457.5430 DIRECT 22-CV-1687 (PGG) (SDA) nicholas.collins@afslaw.com Your Honor: This firm represents Ira Bernstein, Mort Marcus, and Debmar-Mercury (hereinafter “Defendants”) in the above-mentioned matter. Pursuant to Rule I.E. of Your Honor’s Individual Rules, Defendants write to respectfully request that the Court adjourn the initial conference, scheduled for September 14, 2023, sine die for the reasons discussed below. Accordingly, Defendants also request that the deadline for the filing of a joint letter and proposed case management plan, due today, be extended sine die. Counsel for Plaintiff, Abraham George, Esq., does not consent to these requests and states that the basis is his belief that the case should be resolved without further delay. On September 1, 2023, this Court issued an Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 40). Defendants advised Plaintiffs counsel today that Defendants intend to file a Motion for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Stay pending review and consideration of the Appeal. The parties have conferred and have agreed to the following briefing schedule for Defendants’ Anticipated Motion: e Defendants’ Moving Papers: September 26", 2023 ¢ Plaintiff’s Opposition: October 17", 2023! e Defendants’ Reply, if any: October 27", 2023 Typically, initial conferences are held after the filing of an answer and pursuant to this District’s Second Amended Standing Administrative Order, employment cases are referred to mediation. (Ex. A). As of the date of this letter, an Answer has not been filed, which would

Defendants proposed October 10, 2023, as the due date for Plaintiff’s Opposition. However, the parties have agreed to this date as Plaintiff’s counsel has represented that he will be on vacation during that week.

Smart In Your World®

ArentFox Schiff

usually trigger the referral to mediation. Accordingly, this is a reason for the adjournment of the scheduled initial conference. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court adjourn the initial conference and extend the filing deadline of the joint letter and proposed case management plan, sine die.

Sincerely, /s/ Nicholas L. Collins Nicholas L. Collins

ce: VIA ECF Abe George, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff abegeorgenyc@gmail.com Beorgenye@s SO ORDERED. oud & Hovdkppbe Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge Dated: September 11, 2023

EXHIBIT A A WU VO □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT boc # 3 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ——

Inre: Counseled Employment Discrimination Cases Second Amended Standing Assigned to Mediation by Automatic Referral Administrative Order oom M10-468 “ot nenecenenne □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ “es = 7 LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge: □ □□ This Court’s Standing Administrative Order of May 24, 2015, requires all counseled = □□ employment discrimination cases, except cases brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seg., to be automatically referred to the Southern District of New York’s Alternative Dispute Resolution program of mediation upon the filing of an Answer. Effective November 2, 2015, unless otherwise ordered by the judge in the particular case, within 30 days of the filing of an Answer in such cases, the parties must produce the information specified in the Pilot Discovery Protocols for Counseled Employment Cases (“Discovery Protocols”), attached as Exhibit A. Within 60 days of the filing of an Answer, or as soon thereafter as it can be scheduled, the parties and their counsel must participate in a mediation session. The Discovery Protocols require the early exchange of targeted, core discovery, and are intended to frame issues for resolution through mediation and to assist the parties in planning for additional discovery in the event the case is not promptly resolved through mediation. If any party believes that there is good cause why a particular case should be exempted from the Discovery Protocols, in whole or in part, or from mediation, that party must raise the issue promptly with the Court. The Discovery Protocols do not modify any party’s rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Civil Rules, but they do supersede the parties’ obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The Protective Order attached as Exhibit B is deemed issued in all cases governed by this Standing Order. All documents and information produced under the Discovery Protocols will be deemed part of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties’ responses to the Discovery Protocols are subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding supplementation, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) regarding certification of responses, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E) regarding the form of production for documents and electronically stored information.

SO ORDERED: DATED: New York, New York OO Lp October 1, 2015 LORETTA A. PRESKA Chief United States District Judge

1|Page

Exhibit A PILOT DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS FOR COUNSELED EMPLOYMENT CASES The use of the term “documents” below includes electronically stored information (“ESI”). (1) Documents that the plaintiff must produce to the defendant. a. The plaintiff's employment contract. b. Ifthe claims in this lawsuit include a failure to hire or a failure to promote, the plaintiff s application for the position and any documents the plaintiff sent or received concerning the defendant’s decision. c. Ifthe claims in this lawsuit include the wrongful termination of employment, any documents the plaintiff sent or received concerning the defendant’s decision. d. Ifthe claims in this lawsuit include a failure to accommodate a disability, any requests for accommodation and responses to such requests. e. Ifthe plaintiffs employment was terminated, any documents demonstrating the plaintiff's efforts to obtain other employment. The defendant shall not contact or subpoena a prospective or current employer absent agreement or leave of court. f. Any application for disability benefits or unemployment benefits after the alleged adverse action and documents sufficient to show any award. (2) Information that the plaintiff must produce to the defendant. a. Ifthe plaintiff is relying on any oral comments that the plaintiff alleges were discriminatory or on any instances of harassment, identify the speaker or actor, the comment or action, and any witnesses to the comments or harassment. b. A description of the categories and amounts of damages for the plaintiffs claims. (3) Documents that the defendant must produce to the plaintiff. a.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC (Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walsh v. Commercial, Steam Laundry Co.
11 Misc. 3 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1895)