Goodwine v. City of New York et al
| Adelle Goodwine |
| City of New York, New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications, Paul Cosgrave, Ronald Bergmann, Cordell Schachter, Vincent Grippo and Carole Post |
| 1:2015cv02868 |
| April 14, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination) |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
90
OPINION AND ORDER re: 87 SECOND MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Amended Complaint, Refiled filed by Adelle Goodwine, 18 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Paul Cosgrave, New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications, Carole Post, Vincent Grippo, Ronald Bergmann, Cordell Schachter, City of New York, 74 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Amended Complaint, filed by Adelle Goodwine: Fo r the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint are both GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Plaintiff's Section 1981 claims are dismissed, her Title VII retaliat ion claims against the Individual Defendants are dismissed, her hostile work environment claims are dismissed, and leave to add a First Amendment retaliation claim is denied. Otherwise, the Complaint and its claims survive, and Plaintiff is grante d leave to make her proposed amendments. Plaintiff is directed to file the second amended complaint ("SAC") within two days from the date of this Opinion and Order, and Defendants are directed to answer the SAC (although they may ignore the claims that the Court has dismissed or denied leave to add) within three weeks of its filing. Finally, the parties shall appear for an initial pretrial conference with the Court on June 29, 2016, at 4:15 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. In accordance with the Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference (Docket No. 23), the parties shall file a joint letter and proposed Case Management Plan no later than the Thursday before the conference. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 18, 74, 87. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/23/2016) (tn) Modified on 5/24/2016 (tn).
|
|
Filing
60
OPINION AND ORDER (CORRECTED) re: 44 : For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motions to substitute Hagan as her own counsel and to disqualify Canfield as defense counsel were DENIED. One issue remains: the issue of sealed and redacted su bmissions. Defendants submitted heavily redacted pages of Hagan's notes in support of their opposition to Hagan's substitution. (See Hagan's Redacted Notes). In turn, Hagan submitted her reply memorandum of law, a declaration, and t en different exhibits entirely under seal. (See Docket No. 43). By previous order, the Court directed the parties to show cause why sealing or redacting their submissions was "consistent with the presumption in favor of access to judicial documents." (Docket No. 38). Defendants contend that the redactions of Hagan's notes are proper because the redacted materials were irrelevant to this case. (Docket No. 44). The Court agrees, except as to two notations that are, as the d iscussion above makes clear, plainly relevant: the notation to the right of "Adele Goodwine" on page 7 of Hagan's redacted notes and Hagan's observation on page 9 of her notes that Goodwine was the "ring leader of [the] cl ass." But because this Opinion and Order discloses the content of those notes, the Court sees no need for Defendants to re-redact and re-file the notes. Plaintiff does not actually defend her request to seal her reply materials, but a review of the exhibits to her declaration makes clear that they may contain confidential City information. Accordingly, no later than February 5, 2016, Defendants shall advise the Court if they have any objection to Plaintiff's reply materials being publicly filed (in redacted or unredacted form) and explaining why. In the absence of such an objection, Plaintiff shall file all of the materials at issue on ECF by February 8, 2016. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 44. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/1/2016) (tn)
|
|
Filing
59
OPINION AND ORDER re: 44 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 33 Declaration in Opposition to Motion, addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Donna A. Canfield dated November 3, 2015 filed by Paul Cosgrave, New York City Depa rtment of Information Technology & Telecommunications, Carole Post, Vincent Grippo, Ronald Bergmann, Cordell Schachter, City of New York: For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motions to substitute Hagan as her own counsel a nd to disqualify Canfield as defense counsel were DENIED. One issue remains: the issue of sealed and redacted submissions. Defendants submitted heavily redacted pages of Hagan's notes in support of their opposition to Hagan's substitution . (See Hagan's Redacted Notes). In turn, Hagan submitted her reply memorandum of law, a declaration, and ten different exhibits entirely under seal. (See Docket No. 43). By previous order, the Court directed the parties to show cause why seal ing or redacting their submissions was "consistent with the presumption in favor of access to judicial documents." (Docket No. 38). Defendants contend that the redactions of Hagan's notes are proper because the redacted materials we re irrelevant to this case. (Docket No. 44). The Court agrees, except as to two notations that are, as the discussion above makes clear, plainly relevant: the notation to the right of "Adele Goodwine" on page 7 of Hagan's redacted n otes and Hagan's observation on page 9 of her notes that Goodwine was the "ring leader of [the] class." But because this Opinion and Order discloses the content of those notes, the Court sees no need for Defendants to re-redact and re-file the notes. Plaintiff does not actually defend her request to seal her reply materials, but a review of the exhibits to her declaration makes clear that they may contain confidential City information. Accordingly, no later than February 5, 2016, Defendants shall advise the Court if they have any objection to Plaintiff's reply materials being publicly filed (in redacted or unredacted form) and explaining why. In the absence of such an objection, Plaintiff shall file all of the materials at issue on ECF by February 8, 2016. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 44. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/29/2016) (tn)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
