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 Thursday, Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Major League Baseball’s motion to stay discovery in a sexual harassment and gender bias lawsuit filed by two aspiring umpires employed by MLB. The prospective umpires’ second amended complaint, filed in November, asserts hostile-work-environment, wrongful termination, and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In December, MLB filed a motion to dismiss certain of the plaintiffs’ claims, to sever plaintiffs’ claims, and to transfer each plaintiff’s remaining claims out of the Southern District of New York.

On January 3, MLB filed a motion to stay discovery in the case, arguing that its motions to dismiss, sever and transfer provided sufficient grounds on which to pause discovery until the motions were decided. Judge Broderick denied MLB’s motion to stay, finding that MLB had not shown good cause to pause discovery.Continue Reading Judge Broderick Refuses To Stay Discovery in Suit Against Major League Baseball

In an Order yesterday, Judge Torres took issue with the “relentless” filings of counsel for Sean Carter (known professionally as Jay-Z) in a case accusing Mr. Carter and Sean Combs of abusing the plaintiff, a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

Mr. Carter was added to the case in an amendment on December 9, and his lawyer filed letters on December 9, December 10, and December 13, followed by an emergency motion on December 18, all of which argued that the case was meritless and attacked counsel for the plaintiff (who, for his part, responded with a letter on December 20).

Judge Torres was not amused by the “litany” of filings by Mr. Carter’s counsel and suggested that they were a disservice to Mr. Carter:Continue Reading Judge Torres Refuses to “Fast-Track” Abuse Case In Response to “Relentless” Filings from Jay-Z’s Counsel

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