Schafmeister v. NYU Langone Hospitals

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 7, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-11875·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED . □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□ SUSANNE SCHAFMEISTER, DOC DATE FILED: 77/2020 Plaintiff, : -against- : 19-CV-11875 (VSB) NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS, et al., : ORDER AND NOTICE OF : INITIAL CONFERENCE Defendants. : panne eee KX

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: This case has been assigned to me for all purposes. It is hereby: ORDERED that, in light of the public health crisis, the Court will not be holding an initial pretrial conference. In addition, initial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accordance with the Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (“Initial Discovery Protocols”). A copy of the Initial Discovery Protocols is attached to this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by July 17, 2020, the parties submit a joint letter, not to exceed three (3) pages, providing the following information in separate paragraphs: 1. A brief description of the nature of the action and the principal defenses thereto; 2. A brief explanation of why jurisdiction and venue lie in this Court. If any party is a corporation, the letter shall state both the place of incorporation and the principal place of business. If any party is a partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company or trust, the letter shall state the citizenship of each of the entity’s members, shareholders, partners and/or trustees; 3. A brief description of all contemplated and/or outstanding motions;

4. A brief description of any discovery that has already taken place, and/or that which will be necessary for the parties to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations; 5. A brief description of prior settlement discussions (without disclosing the parties’ offers or settlement positions) and the prospect of settlement; 6. The estimated length of trial; and 7. Any other information that the parties believe may assist the Court in advancing the case to settlement or trial, including, but not limited to, a description of any dispositive issue or novel issue raised by the case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties also jointly submit to the Court a proposed case management plan and scheduling order. A template for the order is available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Broderick. The status letter and the proposed case management plan should be filed electronically on ECF, consistent with Section 13.1 of the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Rules & Instructions, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related- instructions. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 7, 2020 fi my New York, New York /} | i f

Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge

PILOT PROJECT REGARDING INITIAL DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS FOR EMPLOYMENT CASES ALLEGING ADVERSE ACTION

November 2011

The Federal Judicial Center is making this document available at the request of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, in furtherance of the Center’s statutory mission to conduct and stimulate research and development for the improvement of judicial administration. While the Center regards the contents as responsible and valuable, it does not reflect policy or recommendations of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Employment Protocols Committee Roster...........................................................................3 Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action ....................4 Standing Order for Certain Employment Cases .................................................................10 Model Protective Order ......................................................................................................12 INTRODUCTION

The Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action provide a new pretrial procedure for certain types of federal employment cases. As described in the Protocols, their intent is to “encourage parties and their counsel to exchange the most relevant information and documents early in the case, to assist in framing the issues to be resolved and to plan for more efficient and targeted discovery.” Individual judges throughout the United States District Courts will pilot test the Protocols and the Federal Judicial Center will evaluate their effects.

This project grew out of the 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation at Duke University, sponsored by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for the purpose of re-examining civil procedures and collecting recommendations for their improvement. During the conference, a wide range of attendees expressed support for the idea of case-type-specific “pattern discovery” as a possible solution to the problems of unnecessary cost and delay in the litigation process. They also arrived at a consensus that employment cases, “regularly litigated and [presenting] recurring issues,”1 would be a good area for experimentation with the concept.

Following the conference, Judge Lee Rosenthal convened a nationwide committee of attorneys, highly experienced in employment matters, to develop a pilot project in this area. Judge John Koeltl volunteered to lead this committee. By design, the committee had a balance of plaintiff and defense attorneys. Joseph Garrison2 (New Haven, Connecticut) chaired a plaintiff subcommittee, and Chris Kitchel3 (Portland, Oregon) chaired a defense subcommittee. The committee invited the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS) to facilitate the process.

1 Civil Rules Advisory Committee, Report to the Standing Committee, 10 (May 17, 2010). 2 Mr. Garrison was a panelist at the Duke Conference. He also wrote and submitted a conference paper, entitled A Proposal to Implement a Cost-Effective and Efficient Procedural Tool Into Federal Litigation Practice, which advocated for the adoption of model or pattern discovery tools for “categories of cases which routinely appear in the federal courts” and suggested the appointment of a task force to bring the idea to fruition. 3 Ms. Kitchel serves on the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery and Civil Justice, which produced the Final Report on the Joint Project of the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, 268 F.R.D. 407 (2009). As a result of her role on the ACTL Task Force, Ms. Kitchel had already begun discussing possibilities for improving employment litigation with Judge Rosenthal when she attended the Duke Conference. 1 The group worked diligently over the course of one year. Committee members met at IAALS for valuable in-person discussions in March and July of 2011. Judge Koeltl was in attendance as well, to oversee the process and assist in achieving workable consensus. In addition, committee members exchanged hundreds of emails, held frequent telephone conferences, and prepared numerous drafts. The committee’s final product is the result of rigorous debate and compromise on both sides, undertaken in the spirit of making constructive and even-handed improvements to the pretrial process.

The Protocols create a new category of information exchange, replacing initial disclosures with initial discovery specific to employment cases alleging adverse action. This discovery is provided automatically by both sides within 30 days of the defendant’s responsive pleading or motion. While the parties’ subsequent right to discovery under the F.R.C.P. is not affected, the amount and type of information initially exchanged ought to focus the disputed issues, streamline the discovery process, and minimize opportunities for gamesmanship.

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

Schafmeister v. NYU Langone Hospitals, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Schafmeister v. NYU Langone Hospitals (Schafmeister v. NYU Langone Hospitals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.