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 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

In an opinion last week, Judge Engelmayer denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding the “unorthodox transaction” exception to Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. Previously, the Second Circuit had vacated and remanded Judge Engelmayer’s earlier decision, which had granted summary judgment, on the grounds that the defendant had not “carried his burden” to show that there was no genuine dispute that he “did not have access to inside information.”

In line with the Second Circuit’s mandate, the Court reopened discovery on this limited factual issue. Ultimately, the only evidence on the relevant issue was testimonial. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant received inside information during a phone call, but the two participants to the call say they only discussed public information. Reviewing the evidence on remand, Judge Engelmayer held that the defendant still had not carried his burden to “indisputably” prove his affirmative defense.

As an initial matter, Judge Engelmayer pointed out that there is no consensus from appellate courts on the moving party’s burden at summary judgment when the moving party has the burden of proof on the merits of the issue:Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer: Summary Judgment Is Not Appropriate Where “Uncontradicted” Testimonial Evidence Could Still Be Disbelieved By Jury

Last week, Magistrate Judge Cave ruled that the New York Attorney General’s Office (“OAG”) was protected from having to comply with a document subpoena under Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The subpoena was issued by former Governor Cuomo, in connection with a defending against a civil lawsuit involving allegations overlapping with matters that OAG had investigated.

Judge Cave was faced with a a question that the Second Circuit has not yet resolved: whether “a subpoena to a state agency and subsequent efforts to enforce it are ‘the type of proceeding[] from which the Framers would have thought the States possessed immunity when they agreed to enter the Union.’” She concluded that OAG was immune:

Continue Reading Magistrate Judge Cave: Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity Bars Enforcement of Document Subpoena to NY Attorney General’s Office

By issuing the OAG Subpoena, and then seeking to enforce it through the OAG MTC, Mr. Cuomo has twice invoked ‘the Judicial power of the United States,’ to require the OAG to produce the Requested Materials, i.e., to ‘compel [the OAG] to act[.]’

Continue Reading Magistrate Judge Cave: Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity Bars Enforcement of Document Subpoena to NY Attorney General’s Office

Last week, Judge Broderick granted NYU’s motion to dismiss a class action complaint brought by a “John Doe” alleging that NYU Law Review gives “preferential treatment to women, non-Asian racial minorities, homosexuals, and transgender people when selecting its members” due, in part, to the journal’s practice of “requir[ing] each applicant to submit a statement of interest that provides ‘a more comprehensive view of [him or her] as an individual.’” John Doe is a first-year law student, who “aspires to join his school’s law review.”Continue Reading Judge Broderick Rejects as Speculative Anonymous Plaintiff’s Claims that NYU Law Review’s Diversity Policies Unlawfully Discriminate

On Monday, Judge Seibel ordered a plaintiff to re-submit an amended 56.1 statement response to comply with the Local Rules. Judge Seibel explained that the response, at 356 pages, was too long and argumentative, did not properly controvert certain of defendants’ statements, and did not include pincites when citing record evidence.

Summarizing the issues with plaintiff’s 56.1 response, Judge Seibel wrote:Continue Reading Judge Seibel: 56.1 Response is Not the Occasion for “Context” or “Semantic Quibbles”