Smith v. Homes for the Homeless

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 23, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-10710·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED . woman nnn nanan DOC # = 5 DATE FILED: _ 6/23/2021 RICHARD SMITH, : Plaintiff, : -against- : 20-CV-10710 (VSB) : ORDER AND NOTICE OF HOMES FOR THE HOMELESS, : INITIAL CONFERENCE Defendant. : we eee X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: This case has been assigned to me for all purposes. It is hereby: ORDERED that pursuant to the Southern District of New York’s Standing Administrative Order of January 3, 2011 regarding employment discrimination cases, this case 1s designated for automatic referral under the Court’s existing Alternative Dispute Resolution program of mediation. 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, in light of the public health crisis, the Court will not be holding an initial pretrial conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Southern District mediation process is unsuccessful, counsel for all parties submit a joint letter, by July 9, 2021, 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;

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, by July 9, 2021, the parties jointly submit to the Court a proposed case management plan and scheduling order. A template for the order is available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-vernon-s-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. Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Pro Se Cases, all communications with the Court by a Pro Se party should be directed to the Pro Se Intake Unit. You may contact the Pro Se Intake Unit at (212) 805-0175 during normal business hours, 8:30am

- 5:00pm, Monday - Friday (except federal holidays). All documents or court filings by a Pro Se party should be sent directly to the Pro Se Intake Unit. Copies of correspondence between a Pro Se party and counsel shall not be sent to the Court. Pro Se information is available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/prose. The Clerk’s Office is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 23, 2021 Il nm, New York, New York nye le ta, } OANA UVUIQK if Vernon S. Broderick 3 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.

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

Smith v. Homes for the Homeless, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Smith v. Homes for the Homeless (Smith v. Homes for the Homeless) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.