Photo of Julie Lascano

Julie Lascano

Subscribe to Julie Lascano's Posts

Julie Wilson Lascano maintains a broad-based commercial litigation practice, representing public and private companies in all stages of litigation before state and federal courts. Her varied experience includes antitrust, IP, employment, product liability, and civil class action matters, as well as internal investigations and post-investigation compliance. Julie has represented clients across a broad array of industries, including in the financial services, logistics and energy sectors.

Active in her pro bono practice, Julie has represented clients in domestic violence, criminal justice, LGBTQ+, and housing matters, including a successful claim against a landlord that resulted in significant housing repairs for her client. During law school, she also participated in Texas Law's Environmental Clinic.

Contact:Read more about Julie Lascano

On Wednesday, in a case brought by the individuals who were falsely convicted of the assassination of Malcolm X in 1965, Judge Ho denied the government’s motion to dismiss with regard to plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claims because sovereign immunity is waived under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Under a 1974 amendment to the FTCA, sovereign immunity is waived for malicious prosecution claims arising after the amendment, i.e., for claims arising after March 16, 1974. In his decision, Judge Ho considered for the first time in this court whether a malicious prosecution claim “arises” for the purposes of the FTCA when the prosecution takes place or when the claimant is exonerated. This case offered the unique situation where the wrongful conviction occurred before 1974, but the exoneration occurred after.Continue Reading Judge Ho: Malicious Prosecution Claims Do Not “Arise” Under FTCA Until Exoneration

In a follow-up to Magistrate Judge Wang’s discovery order last week, in which the court denied defendants Microsoft and OpenAI’s motion to compel discovery for lack of relevance, on Monday Magistrate Judge Wang granted plaintiff New York Times’ motion to compel discovery, in part, to require the production of direct messages from defendants’ employees on X.com.Continue Reading Magistrate Judge Wang: State Law Prohibiting Employers’ Access to Employees’ Social Media Does Not Circumvent Federal Discovery

On Friday, Magistrate Judge Wang denied a motion to compel discovery brought by defendants Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI in an action relating to defendants’ use of plaintiff New York Times’ copyrighted works to train defendants’ large-language models.

Defendants sought to compel the production of plaintiff’s use of, and statements about, AI tools, asserting the evidence was relevant to their fair use defense. Plaintiff argued that the request was “neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case.”Continue Reading Magistrate Judge Wang: New York Times’ AI Use Not Relevant to Microsoft’s Fair Use Defense

On Monday, Judge Karas granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment of a Section 1983 claim by Santander against the City of Yonkers, relating to the impounding and subsequent sale of a vehicle on which Santander held a lien. In a footnote, the court noted that defendants failed to submit a 56.1 statement in support of their motion for summary judgment and that their 56.1 counterstatement had numerous deficiencies. The court declined to deny summary judgment on these grounds, but broadly discredited defendants’ denials and cautioned the parties against ignoring compliance with local rules.Continue Reading Judge Karas: Compliance with Local Rules “Not a Matter to be Taken Lightly”

Last week, Judge Liman issued an opinion and order noting in a footnote that, although plaintiff had filed her opposition one day late, the court would still accept the filing. 

Initially, the defendant argued on reply that plaintiff’s opposition “should be disregarded” due to the delay. In response, the plaintiff “belatedly moved for leave to file a late opposition” and explained that counsel “had been traveling overseas, miscalendared the response date, and did not realize the response was late until this was pointed out by Defendant’s reply.”

Judge Liman ultimately agreed to grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late opposition:Continue Reading Judge Liman: “Weak” Excuse Still Justified One-Day Late Opposition

On Tuesday, Judge Kaplan granted a motion in limine concluding, in a matter of first impression in SDNY, that the evidentiary bar in Federal Rule of Evidence 407 against subsequent remedial measures applies to plaintiffs just the same as defendants. The plaintiff is the tax-collecting arm of the Dutch government, which accuses various defendants of obtaining fraudulent refunds, and which sought to exclude evidence that it updated it guidelines after the underlying events in ways that potentially would have flagged the refund requests as improper. The defendants wanted to introduce the evidence to show (among other things) that the Dutch government was partly to blame for processing the refunds.

Judge Kaplan granted the motion, and, in doing so, rejected the defendants’ arguments that that Rule 407 applies only to measures taken by defendants.Continue Reading Judge Kaplan: Bar on Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures Applies to Both Plaintiffs and Defendants

On Monday, Judge Cote granted a motion to dismiss claims that George Santos, former Congressman, brought against Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, and Disney regarding “Cameo” videos by Santos that Kimmel featured on his show, Jimmy Kimmel Live! Cameo is “a website that allows fans [] to request personalized video messages from public figures and celebrities.” Defendants, using fake names, submitted a number of “ridiculous” requests to Santos for such videos, and Santos created fourteen videos in response. Kimmel subsequently used some of these videos for a segment on his show, in which he “ask[ed] his audience ‘Will Santos Say It?’ before playing the video in full.”Continue Reading Judge Cote: Jimmy Kimmel’s Segment on George Santos’s “Cameo” Videos Constitutes “Fair Use”

Last week, Judge Woods granted defendants’ motion to decertify a class because plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with its obligation to produce a viable class-wide statement of damages. Judge Woods explained that counsel for plaintiffs had been incompetent throughout the litigation, and the Court was no longer satisfied that plaintiffs’ counsel could adequately represent the class.Continue Reading Judge Woods: Class Decertified Due to Counsel’s Continued Inadequacy

On Monday, Judge Rakoff held that a discovery error—uncovered after the parties went to trial—did not merit a redo or sanctions. In June 2021, Adidas brought a trademark action against Thom Browne, alleging that Thom Browne’s four-bar and grosgrain design on its activewear infringed Adidas’s trademarked three-stripe design. The case went to trial in January 2023, where the jury decided that Thom Browne was not liable; the decision was affirmed by the Second Circuit in May 2024.

While the appeal was pending, Adidas learned through a related action in the U.K. that Thom Browne had failed to produce four relevant emails in the course of discovery. Adidas moved for a new trial, and the Court re-opened discovery on this limited issue. The Court determined that the failure stemmed from a miscommunication between the e-discovery vendor and Thom Browne’s paralegals regarding the categorization of certain documents being reviewed for production. In assessing the mistake, Judge Rakoff determined that neither a new trial or sanctions would be appropriate because Adidas “failed to show either that the four emails probably would have changed the outcome of trial . . . or that Thom Brown engaged in ‘misconduct’ in failing to produce the emails.”Continue Reading Judge Rakoff:  Unproduced Emails — Although Relevant — Do Not Warrant New Trial Or Sanctions