Lumbard, J. Edward

English

bepress Legal Repository

Kevin Thomas Duffy: A Judge in Action

Fordham University School of Law

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 3 Volume III Number 1 Volume III Book 1 Article 2 1992 Kevin Thomas Duffy: A Judge in Action J. Edward Lumbard United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj  Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation J. Edward Lumbard, Kevin Thomas Duffy: A Judge in Action, 3 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 5 (1992). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol3/iss1/2 This Editorial is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu. Kevin Thomas Duffy: A Judge in ActionJ. Edward Lumbard*On October 1, 1972, just seven weeks before Kevin ThomasDuffy became a United States District Judge, the Southern Districtof New York adopted the individual calendar system. This radicalchange meant that every newly filed case, whether civil orcriminal, would be assigned by lot to a particular judge who wouldbe responsible for the case until judgment.Judge Duffy was well qualified by training and temperament tooperate under a system that allowed for constant supervision andaction by the judge. As an Assistant United States Attorney tryingcriminal cases, as an active litigator in private practice, and asRegional Administrator of the New York office of the S.E.C., heknew that justice delayed-all too often-is justice denied.Under the individual calendar system, each newly filed civilcase is assigned to one of 13 different wheels, depending on thenature and complexity of the case. The court clerk then picks atrandom the name of the judge to whom the case will be assigned.When Judge Duffy is selected, he immediately receives thecomplaint and thereafter any papers that are filed. With the casebefore him, Judge Duffy calls counsel to chambers for a pre-trialconference. At the conference, he makes it clear that the case mustmove along with deliberate speed, and delay will not be tolerated.Judge Duffy allows three months for pre-trial proceedings afterwhich time the parties are expected to be ready for trial.Judge Duffy acts speedily where prompt action is needed. In1973, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company ("A & P") soughtto enjoin a tender offer by Gulf & Western to purchase A & Pstock, alleging that the Gulf & Western offer announced onFebruary 1 violated the securities laws. Judge Duffy signed an* Senior United States Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuiL6 FORDHAM ENT., MEDIA & INTELL. PROP. L.F.Order to Show Cause February on 6, held a hearing February 9,and filed a 21 page opinion granting a preliminary injunction onFebruary 18. By expedited appeal the Court of Appeals heardargument on March 8 and affirmed Judge Duffy on March 12.1Inevitably, as a result of pre-trial proceedings, cases are settledor motions are made for summary judgment. Judge Duffy does nothesitate to grant summary judgment where he finds no materialissue to be tried. If plaintiff fails to provide necessary informationor attempts to mislead, he does not hesitate to dismiss the com-plaint or to apply appropriate sanctions. Judge Duffy does nothesitate to penalize inexcusable delays. Thus, in 525 Fulton StreetHolding Corp. v. Mission National Insurance Co.,2 where theplaintiff failed for over two years to give details of claimed lossesto defendant insurance company, he dismissed the complaint.Where counsel removed a complaint to federal court by misleadingallegations, he remanded the case to state court and imposedsanctions of $7,500 against the party and counsel.3When the defendant is arraigned in a criminal case, themagistrate takes from the wheel, appropriate to the nature andcomplexity of the case, the name of the judge to whom the case isto be assigned. After assignment, Judge Duffy has a conferencewithin three weeks of the arraignment to discuss scheduling of trial.He sees to it that the case is simplified for trial to a jury in orderto shorten the trial and improve the consideration by the jury andthe court.For example, in 1985, Paul Castellano and 23 others wereindicted for conspiracy to violate racketeering, narcotics, stolenproperty and civil rights laws. Judge Duffy's handling of this caserequired constant labor to prevent a far lengthier trial and aproliferation of evidence and issues that would result in unneces-sary pressures on counsel, the jury and the court. He required the1. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc. v. Great Am. At. & Pac. Tea Co., 356 F. Supp. 1066(S.D.N.Y.), affid, 476 F.2d 687 (2d Cir. 1973).2. 610 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).3. Polanco v. 21 Arden Realty Corp., 121 B.R. 425, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14631(S.D.N.Y. 1990).[Vol. 3:1DEDICATION TO JUDGE DUFFYgovernment to reduce the indictment from 91 pages and 78 countsto only 9 pages and 23 counts, charging only ten of the defendantswith conspiracies to violate property and civil rights laws.4 Aftera six month trial, the jury convicted all of the defendants still ontrial, Castellano having been murdered during trial. The remaining14 defendants were later convicted after a 13 month trial before adifferent judge.In the Southern District, about 90% of all civil cases areconcluded without a trial. In criminal cases, even more than 90%are disposed of without trial. By his active supervision, JudgeDuffy insures that cases assigned to him move along quickly sothat he is able, without delay, to try those cases that require trial.By constant attention, Judge Duffy has kept his caseload low andhas been able to try those cases which must be tried within arelatively short time after their commencement.It is in the district courts that the most important work of thefederal judiciary is done. This work is best done when cases aredisposed of with a minimum of delay. Over the past 20 years,Judge Duffy's labors, in the supervision of his calendar, have beena major contribution to the outstanding record of the SouthernDistrict of New York.4. United States v. Gaggi, 632 F. Supp. 1019 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), aff'd in part andrev'd in part, 811 F.2d 47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 929 (1987).19921

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&amp;context=iplj

Kevin Thomas Duffy: A Judge in Action

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

Fordham University School of Law