Maragh v. The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation et al
| Othniel Evans Maragh |
| The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation, The Roosevelt Island Operating Board of Directors, Charlene Indelicato, Claudia McDade, Frances Walton, Muneshwar Jagnacuty, Howard Polivy, Katherine Grimm, Michael Shinozaki, Fay Freyer Christian, Margaret Smith, David Kraut, Mary Beth Labate and Darryl Towns |
| 1:2016cv07530 |
| September 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Nassau |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e-2ot Job Discrimination (other) |
| 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
213
ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' respective submissions regarding the grounds to maintain any materials filed in connection with Defendants' motion for summary judgment under seal or in redacted form, see ECF Nos. 211-212, the Cour t concludes that Defendants have not satisfied their burden to maintain the reports filed at ECF Nos. 161-1 and 162-1 entirely under seal. At a minimum, the portions of the reports that describe the relevant complaints and set forth the conclusion s of the investigations must be made public, subject to redaction of the names and other identifying details of third-party participants. To the extent that documentary evidence relied on in the investigations can be filed publicly without revealin g the identities of participants in the investigation, see, e.g., ECF No. 162-1, at 49-78, such evidence also must be made public, subject to narrowly tailored redactions. That said, substantially for the reasons set forth in Defendants' lett er, see ECF No. 211, notes from third-party witness interviews and the like may be redacted in their entirety to preserve the confidentiality of the investigations. By contrast, given the Court's ruling that the audio recording and transcript that Plaintiff filed under seal are inadmissible, see Maragh v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp., No. 16-CV-7530 (JMF), 2021 WL 3501238, at *4 & n.8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021) (ECF No. 207), there is no basis to make those materials public, contrary to Plaintiff's argument for unsealing, see ECF No. 212. Accordingly, no later than August 31, 2021, Defendants shall file ECF Nos. 161-1 and 162- 1 publicly on the docket, with narrowly tailored redactions consistent with this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/24/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
205
ORDER terminating 204 Letter Motion to Seal. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file any transcript of the audio recording that he submitted to Chambers under seal in the first instance. To do so, Plaintiff shall mail the transcript to Defendants and to th e Chambers of the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States District Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, no later than May 17, 2021. Upon receipt, the Court will file the transcript under seal. To be clear, Plai ntiff may not submit anything else directly to Chambers without first obtaining leave to do so, through a written request submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit. If any party believes that the transcript should remain sealed or redacted for reasons no t already addressed in this letter motion, that party shall file a letter brief, within three days of the transcript being filed and not to exceed three pages, showing why doing so is consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to jud icial documents. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. With regard to Defendants& #039; other concerns, the Court reserves judgment on whether and to what extent to consider either the audio recording or the transcript in deciding the pending motion for summary judgment, and the transcript will be considered, if at all, solely a s an aid to interpreting the audio recording and not as evidence in its own right. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 204 and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/12/21) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
198
ORDER: Under the circumstances, the Court grants Plaintiff permission to send the audio file in hard copy to Chambers. To be clear, that permission is limited to the audio file; Plaintiff may not submit anything else directly to the Court without fi rst obtaining leave to do so, through a written request submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit. No later than May 4, 2021, Plaintiff shall send the file by mail to: The Chambers of the Honorable Jesse M. Furman Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Dist rict Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007. The Court reserves judgment on whether and to what extent to consider the audio file in connection with Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/27/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
173
CONFIDENTIALDITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER:...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. This Order binds the parties to treat as confidential the documents so classified. This Court, however, has not revi ewed the documents referenced herein; therefore, by signingthis Order, the Court makes no finding as to whether the documents are confidential. That finding will be made, if ever, upon a document-by-document review pursuant to the procedures set fort h in the Court's Individual Rules and Practices and subject to the presumption in favor of public access to "judicial documents." See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). To that end, the C ourt does not "so order" any provision to the extent that it purports to authorize the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order. See New York ex rel. Khurana v. Spherion Corp., No. 15-CV-6605 (JMF), 2019 WL 3294170 ( S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2019). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, who should be aware that it is effective immediately. That said, Defendants have not indicated whether Plaintiff was given an opportunity to confer on the substance of the proposed order. If Plaintiff was not given that opportunity and if he has any objection, he shall file a letter with the Court no later than February 2, 2021, and the Court will consider modifying the Order accordingly. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/19/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
156
ORDER re: 151 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 149 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 143 Order on Motion for Extension of Time: The Clerk of Court is directed to mail copies of ECF Nos. 143, 149, and 151, as well as a copy of thi s Order, to Plaintiff. The Court previously neglected to direct the mailing of these endorsed letter-motions. Further, to minimize delays, for the convenience of the parties, and to conserve judicial resources, the Court strongly encourages the Plain tiff to consent to electronic service by completing the attached Consent to Electronic Service Form, which is also available on the Court's website at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/proseconsentecf notice-final.pdf, and to return it to the Pro Se Office. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/8/2021) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER granting 152 LETTER MOTION to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion. The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding t he underlying motion. The parties shall submit a proposed protective order for the Court's consideration (mindful that the Court will strike or modify any provision that purports to authorize any party to file material under seal absent a court order). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 152 and to mail a copy of this endorsed letter-motion to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/7/2021) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER: Pursuant to the Court's resolution by phone of a discovery dispute between the parties during Plaintiff's deposition, each party was permitted to designate portions of the transcripts of Plaintiff's deposition as confidentia l. On November 19, 2020, Defendant filed a letter designating as confidential various portions of the transcripts. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, any document containing or describing these portions of the transcripts is deemed conf idential and must be filed under seal or in redacted form in the first instance. The Court will then evaluate the propriety of maintaining such materials under seal in light of the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/23/2020) (rj) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER: The Court held a settlement conference in this matter on November 13, 2019. As discussed at the conference, by November 26, 2019, Defendants shall file, and serve on Plaintiff, a status letter indicating when in December or January a pre-settlement call and a follow-up settlement conference will be productive. Defendants are encouraged to file such a letter earlier if reasonably practicable. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 11/13/2019) (mro)
|
|
Filing
84
OPINION AND ORDER re: 60 MOTION to Dismiss filed by John McManus, The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation, Claudia McDade, Muneshwar Jagdharry, Charlene Indelicato. In sum, Defendants' motions are granted in part and den ied in part. Specifically, for the reasons discussed above, all of Maragh's claims are dismissed, except for his discrimination and hostile work environment claims under Title VII (against RIOC) and under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL (against RIOC a nd the individual Defendants in their individual capacities). Further, Maragh may not seek punitive damages except against the individual Defendants under the NYCHRL. Nor will the Court grant Maragh leave sua sponte to amend his complaint, yet ag ain, to address the deficiencies in those claims. See, e.g., Ritchie Capital Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 821 F.3d 349, 351-52 (per curiam) (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiff an opport unity to amend its complaint where it "did not ask the district court for leave to amend"). Among other things, most of the problems with Maragha's claims are substantive, so amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Additionally, Maragh was already granted leave to amend his complaint to cure deficiencies raised in Defendants' first motion to dismiss and was explicitly cautioned that he "w[ould] not be given any fur ther opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss." Docket No. 48. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, Maragh shall file a third amended complaint adding a hostile work environment claim under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL within one week of this Opinion and Order. (As long as he is amending, Maragh should remove all of the claims that the Court has dismissed but may not otherwise make any substantive changes to the complaint without obtaining consent from Defendants or leave from the Court.) Defendants shall file an answer to the third amended complaint within three weeks of its filing. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 60. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/12/2018) (ne)
|
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.
