Farrell v. City of New York et al
| Donna Farrell |
| City of New York and Equal Employment Opportunity Division of The New York City Police Department |
| 1:2023cv04329 |
| May 24, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Kenneth M Karas |
| Jennifer L Rochon |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
INFORMATION PACKAGE MAILED to Donna Farrell on 06/12/2023 Re: #6 Mediation Referral Order for Pro Se Employment Discrimination Cases #7 Order on Motion to Seal. The following document(s) were enclosed in the Service Package: a copy of the order of service or order to answer and other orders entered to date, a copy of the Mediation Referral Order for Pro Se Employment Discrimination Cases, the individual practices of the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to your case, Instructions for Litigants Who Do Not Have Attorneys, Notice Regarding Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files, a flyer about the free legal assistance clinic located in the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse (only in non prisoner cases), a Motions guide, a notice that the Pro Se Manual has been discontinued, a Notice of Change of Address form to use if your contact information changes, a handout explaining matters handled by magistrate judges and consent form to complete if all parties agree to proceed for all purposes before the magistrate judge, a form for you to complete if you consent to receive filings electronically (only in nonprisoner cases), one or more summonses (only if you have paid the fee in person or if the judge has ordered that a summons be issued to you) - 2 copies of Summons(es) mailed. (ta)
|
| Filing 8 SUMMONS ISSUED as to City of New York, Equal Employment Opportunity Division of The New York City Police Department. (Attachments: #1 Supplement Summons)(ta) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons as to both Defendants. Plaintiff is directed to serve the summons and Complaint on the Defendants within 90 days of the issuance of the summons. If within those 90 days, Plaintiff has not either served Defendants or requested an extension of time to do so, the Court may dismiss the claims against Defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to redact sensitive personal identifying information subject to Plaintiff re-submitting any documents containing such information with proposed redactions within 45 days of the date of this Order. This means that Plaintiff should refile any document for which she seeks to redact, with the redactions already made consistent with this Order. By way of illustration, Plaintiff should redact her home address except for the City and State, should redact her phone number except for its last four digits, and should redact her tax identification number. If Plaintiff does not submit proposed redactions within that time, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to make the filings viewable to the public. If Plaintiff seeks to redact documents in the future, she should submit a letter-motion for approval and (i) publicly file the document with the proposed redactions, and (ii) file under seal a copy of the unredacted document with the proposed redactions highlighted, consistent with Rule 4 of the Court's Individual Rules in Civil Cases. The Clerk of Court is directed to keep ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 under seal and viewable only to the parties and the Court; terminate ECF No. 4; issue a summons as to both Defendants; and mail Plaintiff an information package and a copy of this Order. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 6/9/2023) (tro) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.
|
|
Filing 6
MEDIATION REFERRAL ORDER FOR PRO SE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES: IT IS ORDERED that this pro se case is referred for mediation to the Court's Mediation Program. Local Civil Rule 83.9 and the Mediation Program Procedures shall govern the mediation. Unless otherwise ordered, the mediation will have no effect upon any scheduling order issued by this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff at the mediation. Pro bono counsel will contact Plaintiff directly. The time to assign a mediator under Local Civil Rule 83.9 and the Court's Mediation Program Procedures will be deferred until pro bono counsel has filed a Notice of Limited Appearance of Pro Bono Counsel. Pro bono counsel will represent Plaintiff solely for purposes of the mediation, and that representation will terminate at the conclusion of the mediation process. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 6/09/2023) (ama) Transmission to Mediation Clerk for processing.
|
| Magistrate Judge James L. Cott is so redesignated. (sgz) |
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas is no longer assigned to the case. (sgz) |
| Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (rdz) |
| Case Designated ECF. (rdz) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
