SDNY Blog

Subscribe to SDNY Blog via RSS

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

John F. Keenan, a longtime federal judge in Manhattan who presided over the high-profile trials of Bess Meyerson, a popular former cultural-affairs commissioner in New York City and ex-beauty queen, and Imelda Marcos, the extravagant former first

…

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

In an opinion Wednesday, Judge Torres held unconstitutional a New York City law mandating that online food delivery platforms like Door Dash share customer data (e.g., name, address, email, phone) directly with the restaurants from which customers order their food. The aim of the law was to allow the restaurants to tilt the balance of marketing power away from the online platforms and back to the restaurants.

Judge Torres first concluded that the law implicated speech (not conduct) under the First Amendment: “The Customer Data Law directly regulates what Plaintiffs can (indeed, must) ‘say’ to the restaurants that use their services. In other words, regulation of speech is the object—not an incidental byproduct—of the law.”

She next concluded that the law failed “intermediate” scrutiny because there was only a thin connection between the government interests at stake and the speech burden used to address the interest. The City argued that the law addressed “exploitative” practices like the platforms using data about one restaurant’s customers to pitch to those customers competitor restaurants or restaurants that pay higher fees. But Judge Torres found that the law did little to actually remedy those issues and reflected instead, a “mere preference for one industry over another”:

Continue Reading Judge Torres: City Law Compelling Food Delivery Platforms to Share Customer Data With Restaurants Is Unconstitutional Compelled Speech