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 Thursday, Judge Liman granted plaintiff Blake Lively’s motion to strike a letter from the docket in her ongoing lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation claims against Justin Baldoni and his production company, in connection with the filming of It Ends With Us. The challenged letter “accused Lively, and her counsel, of engaging in witness tampering and evidence spoliation based on an undisclosed anonymous source.”

The Court, noting that it had “inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases” and the authority to “strike materials outside the pleadings that are abusive or otherwise improper,” explained that the letter “must be stricken” because it was improper and irrelevant. Specifically, the Court concluded: Continue Reading Judge Liman: Court Has “Inherent” Authority to Strike Inflammatory Baldoni Letter from Public Docket

Last Tuesday, after oral argument, Judge Buchwald granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration concerning the detainment and removal of Columbia student, Yunseo Chung, who is a lawful permanent resident. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for May 20, and the government is barred from detaining her or transferring her out of the Southern District in the meantime.

Ms. Chung filed her complaint last Monday, alleging that the attempted deportation violated her First Amendment rights. Ms. Chung participated in a “sit-in and protest” at Columbia on March 5, 2025, at which she was arrested and “given a Desk Appearance Ticket, . . . a common citation issued by the police at protests.” By March 10, 2025, Ms. Chung’s counsel was notified that her “lawful permanent resident status” was being revoked, and judicial search warrants were executed three days later.

The government is apparently invoking a law allowing for the removal of noncitizens whose presence or activities in the United States “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” as determined by the Secretary of State. Ms. Chung’s brief in support of the TRO argues that it was until recently “preposterous” to think that student protests would trigger this law:Continue Reading Judge Buchwald Grants TRO Preventing Deportation of Columbia Student Protester

On Wednesday, Judge Furman ruled on several motions in limine for an upcoming bench trial, including denying a motion to preclude the testimony of a fact witness that defendants had failed to include, without justification, in their Rule 26 disclosures.

The Court explained that preclusion was too “drastic” for this case, where there was no prejudice to the plaintiff:Continue Reading Judge Furman: Preclusion Too “Drastic” for Witness Omitted From Rule 26 Disclosures Absent Prejudice

On Wednesday, Judge Woods endorsed a joint letter from the New York Times and the Department of Justice to stay proceedings in a FOIA case, pending the outcome of an administrative appeal.

The case concerns the NYT’s January 10, 2025 expedited FOIA request for the second volume of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report. This volume addresses his decisionmaking in the criminal case against Trump regarding the alleged mishandling of classified documents. On January 21, 2025, alleging that the DOJ had not addressed their expedited processing request within the required timeframe, Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit.

Subsequently, the DOJ expedited the NYT’s request, and then denied it on February 5, 2025. Because a decision has been issued, an administrative appeal is now available.

In requesting a stay, the parties recognized, but did not ask the Court to address, an “unusual” issue:Continue Reading Judge Woods Stays FOIA Case Over Volume II of Jack Smith Report, Allowing For Administrative Process to Be Completed

On Saturday, Judge Engelmayer granted an application for temporary restraining order filed that day by the Attorneys General of 19 States. They requested that, pending a hearing for preliminary injunction, the Court restrain access by the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) — or others that normally lack access — to the Treasury Department’s “payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees.”

Among the arguments advanced by the Attorneys General is that the Privacy Act of 1974 limits the disclosure of confidential information within an agency to specified persons within that agency, without any authority for disclosure to DOGE staffers or others outside Treasury.

The Court, in granting the temporary restraining order and scheduling a hearing for a preliminary injunction for February 14, agreed with the States that, absent a TRO, there was risk of sensitive information being compromised or the system being vulnerable to hacking:Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer Grants TRO Blocking Access to Treasury Databases

On Thursday, Judge Oetken granted defendant Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment in a derivative action brought on behalf of the now-defunct Lifetrade investment fund. Despite granting the motion, Judge Oetken explained in a footnote that the parties’ 56.1 statements were improper.

The Court noted that the parties submitted a collective 879 pages of “unnecessary…

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”