Opinion
21-CV-2015 (AT) (BCM)
07-08-2021
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MINT LLC, Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING GENERAL PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT
BARBARA MOSES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The above-referenced action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
The case management conference previously set for October 4, 2021, before Judge Torres, is hereby ADJOURNED to October 12, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., before Judge Moses, in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.
As to the discovery dispute pending at Dkt. No. 18, Judge Moses will hold a telephonic discovery conference on July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. The parties are directed to call (888) 5578511 on their scheduled date, a few minutes before their scheduled time, and enter the access code 7746387. Please treat the teleconference as you would treat a public court appearance. If a conference or hearing in another matter is ongoing, please be silent (mute your line) until your case is called.
Going forward:
1. All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court.
2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless the Court determines that more formal briefing is required. Absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely.
3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.
4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.
5. In accordance with § 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and letter-motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains attachments, which must be attached with protruding tabs.
6. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(3) and (b)(4), all depositions in this action may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means, and may be recorded by any reliable audio or audiovisual means. This Order does not dispense with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(5), including the requirement that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the deposition be "conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28," and that the deponent be placed under oath by that officer. For avoidance of doubt, a deposition will be deemed to have been conducted "before" an officer so long as that officer attends the deposition via the same remote means (e.g., telephone conference call or video conference) used to connect all other remote participants, and so long as all participants (including the officer) can clearly hear and be heard by all other participants.
7. The disclosure of documents or information (electronic or otherwise) subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or other privilege or immunity from production shall not operate as a waiver of that privilege or immunity in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. This paragraph shall be interpreted to provide the maximum protection permitted by Fed.R.Evid. 502(d).
8. Except as set forth herein, all other provisions of, and deadlines set forth in the Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 17) remain in effect.
SO ORDERED.