In an order yesterday in the appeal of the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case, Judge McMahon invited briefing, due Monday at 9:00 a.m., on whether the Sackler family, which contributed $4.5 billion to the Purdue estate in exchange for releases, abused the bankruptcy system by distributing excessive profits to themselves in the years immediately prior to the bankruptcy: Continue Reading Judge McMahon Asks for Briefing on Whether Purdue Pharma’s Profit Distributions to Sackler Family Were “Abusive”

In a potentially useful discovery order issued today, Judge Liman rejected defendants’ attempt to obtain a document-by-document privilege log from a plaintiff who had submitted a categorical privilege log. The order acknowledges the propriety of using a categorical privilege log as an “efficient means of providing information regarding claims of privilege,” even where third parties are involved in the privileged communications: Continue Reading Judge Liman: Categorical Privilege Log Appropriate Even Where Third Parties Involved in Privileged Communications

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Cote ruled inadmissible certain deposition designations that a group of defendants wanted to use at a forthcoming antitrust trial because the witnesses were corporate representatives who lacked personal knowledge of the matters to which they testified.

As Judge Cote explained, even though Rule 30(b)(6) authorizes deposition testimony via corporate representatives that are supposed to gather knowledge from others, it does not follow that the testimony meets the standards for admissibility at trial: Continue Reading Judge Cote: Corporate Representative Deposition Testimony Must Be Based on Personal Knowledge to Be Admissible at Trial

In the long-running case between former New York Knicks player Charles Oakley and Madison Square Garden over his removal from a game in 2017 (see our prior posts here), Judge Sullivan (apparently still winding down some of his District Court cases) yesterday granted summary judgment to the defendants.

Judge Sullivan found that the video evidence made clear that no excessive force was used: Continue Reading Judge Sullivan: Video Evidence Disproves Charles Oakley’s Case Over Ejection from Madison Square Garden

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Seibel largely rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by University of Tampa students claiming that the University breached its obligations to them by failing to hold in-person classes.

A newly-enacted Florida statute provides educational institutions with immunity for these types of claims, but Judge Seibel found that applying the statute retroactively would violate due process: Continue Reading Judge Seibel: Students Can Pursue Contract Claims for University’s Failure to Hold In-Person Classes During the Pandemic

In an opinion today, the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Oetken’s dismissal (covered here) of a lawsuit in which four states, including New York, sought to invalidate law passed in 2017 capping on the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) on a filer’s federal income tax returns. The Second Circuit agreed that whatever burden the cap imposed on states was no so severe to violate federalism principles: Continue Reading Second Circuit Upholds Judge Oetken’s Rejection of Constitutional Challenge to 2017 “SALT” Deduction Cap

In a new complaint yesterday, plaintiffs that operate the food delivery platforms DoorDash, Caviar, Grubhub, Seamless, Postmates, and Uber Eats sued the City of New York to challenge caps on fees that these platforms can charge restaurants to use their services.  The caps – at 15% of an online order for delivery services, and 5% for all other services (such as marketing) – were originally enacted as a temporary measure at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic when restaurants were forced to close for in-person dining.

The suit takes issue with the City’s decision to extend these caps indefinitely: Continue Reading Food Delivery Platforms Challenge City-Imposed Caps on Fees

In an opinion Friday, Judge Caproni refused to enforce a disputed settlement of a trademark case that had been pending before her. The case was dismissed when the parties reported they had settled. The alleged settlement was not reflected in any court order.  And when apparent settlement fell apart, the plaintiff asked Judge Caproni to re-open the case so as to enforce the settlement. But Judge Caproni found that the request effectively asked her to assert supplemental jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim: Continue Reading Judge Caproni: Jurisdiction Over Case Doesn’t Mean Jurisdiction to Enforce Disputed Settlement