Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. v. Mercury Systems, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: March 8, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00336
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

. Conference adjourned from ReedSmith March 28, 2024 to May 17, 2024 need mth Driving progress at 10:30 a.m. Call-In: 1-888-363-4749, soo Lexington Avenue John C. Seabee Access Code: 3667981. New York, NY 10022-7650 Direct Phone: +1 212 549 0219 SO ORDERED. Fax ot □□ □□□□ Email: jscalzo@reedsmith.com Dated: 3/8/2024 reedsmith.com

March 7, 2024 ZA ewes wIARCE P. Kevin Castel The Honorable P. Kevin Castel United States District J udge United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. v. Mercury Systems, Inc. No. 1:24-cv-00336 Dear Judge Castel: Reed Smith represents Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. (“Leidos”) in the above- referenced action. Defendant Mercury Systems, Inc. (“Mercury”) is represented by Levitt LLP. The parties jointly submit this letter requesting an adjournment of the March 18, 2024 pre-trial conference and the March 11, 2024 deadline for the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed Case Management Plan, as ordered by this Court on January 19, 2024. (See ECF 6.) By way of background, Leidos filed its Complaint in this case on January 16, 2024. Leidos did not immediately effectuate formal service of the Complaint on Mercury while the parties attempted to resolve their dispute, but have not been able to reach agreement to date. While the parties continue to discuss whether resolution at this stage is possible, Leidos served Mercury on March 5, 2024. Mercury plans to respond to the Complaint by answer and counterclaims. Leidos anticipates moving to dismiss at least some of the expected counterclaims. Given the anticipated motion practice and ongoing discussions noted above, the parties respectfully submit that a pre-trial conference and setting of a Case Management Plan would be premature until the pleadings are closed. The Court has broad discretion to grant adjournments of pretrial conferences, see, e.g., Gordon v. Tese-Milner (In re Gordon), 577 B.R. 38, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11 (1983)), and initial pretrial conferences are routinely adjourned sine die where parties anticipate or are engaged in motion practice on the pleadings. See, e.g., Watkins v. Harlem Ctr. for Nursing & Rehab, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163678, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (adjourning initial pretrial conference sine die where based on anticipated motion practice). Accordingly, the parties jointly respectfully request that the Court adjourn the March 18, 2024 pre-trial conference sine die. This is the parties’ first request for an adjournment of dates in this case, and no other deadlines will be affected by this request. ABU DHABI ¢ ATHENS ¢ AUSTIN ¢ BEIJING ¢ CENTURY CITY ¢ CHICAGO # DALLAS ¢ DUBAI ¢ FRANKFURT ¢ HONG KONG ¢ HOUSTON ¢ KAZAKHSTAN @ LONDON ¢ LOS ANGELES ¢ MIAMI ¢ MUNICH NEW YORK ¢ PARIS ¢ PHILADELPHIA ¢ PITTSBURGH ¢ PRINCETON # RICHMOND ¢ SAN FRANCISCO @ SHANGHAI ¢ SILICON VALLEY ¢ SINGAPORE ¢ TYSONS ¢ WASHINGTON, D.C. ¢ WILMINGTON

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted,

REED SMITH LLP LEVITT LLP

/s/ John C. Scalzo /s/ Trevor M. Gomberg John C. Scalzo Trevor M. Gomberg Reed Smith LLP Levitt LLP 599 Lexington Avenue 129 Front Street New York, NY 10022 Mineola, NY 11501 Tel: (212) 521-5400 Tel: (516) 248-9700 Email: jscalzo@reedsmith.com Email: tgomberg@levittlawllp.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Leidos Security Counsel for Defendant Mercury Systems, Inc. Detection & Automation, Inc.

cc: All Counsel of Record via ECF