Knopf et al v. Esposito et al
Plaintiff: Michael Knopf and Norma Knopf
Defendant: Frank M. Esposito, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Nathaniel H Akerman, Edward S Feldman and Michael Hayden Sanford
Case Number: 1:2017cv05833
Filed: August 2, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge: Denise L. Cote
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 438 ORDER granting 434 Motion to Substitute Party. It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff Michael Knopf, who is deceased, be terminated from this civil action. In his place, Norma Knopf, an individual who is named as a distributee an d as the Executor in Michael Knopf's Last Will, shall be substituted in place of Michael Knopf; and it is further ORDERED that, going forward, the caption of the case will be; as further set forth herein. Michael Knopf terminated. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 4/12/2021) (mro)
March 8, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 417 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that DANY may withhold these four email communications from its production to Esposito. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/8/2021) (jca)
March 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 416 OPINION AND ORDER: Having unambiguously rejected Esposito's Rule 68 offer of judgment, the plaintiffs may not reverse course and accept the same offer. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/5/2021) (jca)
March 3, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 414 ORDER: An Order of March 2, 2021 erroneously stated that the plaintiffs had failed to notify the Court that they had rejected defendant Frank Esposito's February 17 offer of judgment on February 18. The plaintiffs informed the Court of the February 18 rejection in their memorandum of March 1. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/3/2021) (jca)
March 2, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 411 ORDER. As set forth in a telephone conference of March 2, 2021, it is hereby ORDERED that the New York County District Attorneys Office (DANY) shall, by March 5, 2021, produce to defendant Esposito its written communications between DANY and Eric Be rry arising out of or related to litigation involving Berrys clients Norma Knopf and Michael Knopf and their adversary Michael Sanford. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DANY may submit by March 5, 2021 any such communications to this Courts chambers email address CoteNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov for in camera review. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall not share the documents or their substance with anyone other than the parties in this case without advance permission from the Court. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on March 2, 2021) (vs)
March 1, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 404 ORDER: The plaintiffs having accepted defendant Frank Esposito's Rule 68 offer of judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that the telephone conference scheduled for March 2, 2021 at 2:00pm, which was scheduled to address Esposito's request for dis covery, is cancelled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Esposito shall serve the District Attorney's Office with this Order by March 2, 2021 at 11:00am. ***Hearings Terminated*** The following hearing(s) was terminated: Telephone Conference. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/1/2021) (jca)
February 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 396 ORDER granting 391 LETTER MOTION to Seal and redact. The proposed redactions are approved. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/25/2021) (jca)
February 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 384 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: In a letter of February 15, 2021, the plaintiffs move to compel non-party attorney Matt Bronfman to produce communications between himself and his client, non-party Michael Phillips, and co-counsel Lori Braverman that occurred on January 7 and 11, 2016. The plaintiffs do not dispute that the communications are subject to the attorney-client privilege but contend that the crime-fraud exception permits discovery. For several reasons, this motion to compel is denied . It is too late in the day for the plaintiffs to bring this motion to compel in this action. The plaintiffs have not shown a sufficient connection between the discovery they seek from Phillips attorneys and their claims in the § 1983 action. Th e plaintiffs have obtained discovery directly from the title company and have not disputed Bronfman's description of that evidence. As Bronfman explains, it was Sanford -- and not Phillips -- who was the avenue through which the title company re ceived material information. If Bronfman's evidence were indeed critical, the plaintiffs would have brought a motion to compel it when they pursued discovery in Phillips. They have failed to carry their burden to show probable cause for breaching the privilege, sufficient relevance to the § 1983 claim, or adequate diligence to require an in camera review and further litigation at this stage of the instant lawsuit. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/23/2021) (jca)
February 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 373 ORDER: Michael Sanford having raised the issue that he was not properly served with the plaintiffs' motion to compel of February 12, 2021, it is hereby ORDERED that the Order of February 19, 2021 granting the plaintiffs' motion to compel is vacated. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/19/2021) (jca)
February 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 363 ORDER: denying 345 Letter Motion for Discovery; granting 354 Letter Motion to Compel; granting 359 Letter Motion to Compel. ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DANY's request to quash deposition and document subpoenas served by Esposito is granted. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/16/2021) (ama)
February 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 357 ORDER denying 351 Letter Motion to Seal. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on February 14, 2021) (vs)
February 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 348 ORDER granting 343 LETTER MOTION to Seal Motion for a Protective Order forbidding discovery of certain material. The proposed redactions are approved. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/12/2021) (jca)
February 8, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 335 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that any opposition to the plaintiffs' letter of February 6 shall be submitted by Wednesday, February 10, 2021. (And as further set forth herein.) (Responses due by 2/10/2021) (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/8/2021) (jca)
February 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 331 OPINION AND ORDER re: 311 LETTER MOTION to Compel Melissa Ringel to produce documents addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote from Eric Berry dated January 28, 2021. filed by Michael Knopf, Norma Knopf. The plaintiffs' January 28 application is granted. Ringel shall produce to the plaintiffs by February 8, 2021 the telephone records in her possession or under her control that are responsive to the subpoena. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/5/2021) (jca)
February 3, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 328 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: 317 LETTER MOTION to Stay addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote from Frank Esposito dated January 28, 2021. filed by Frank M. Esposito. Espositos January 28, 2021 application for a stay is denied. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/3/2021) (js)
February 2, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 323 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, by February 3, 2021, the plaintiffs shall submit a new motion to redact that (1) properly describes the documents to which the request refers and (2) includes a description of the reasons underlying the request or i ncorporates the reasons set forth in another publicly filed document, such as the plaintiffs January 19, 2021 application. (And as further set forth herein.) (Motions due by 2/3/2021.), Motions terminated: 319 LETTER MOTION to Seal Response to Esposito's Motion for a Stay addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote from Eric Berry dated February 1, 2021. filed by Michael Knopf, Norma Knopf. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/2/2021) (jca)
January 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 318 ORDER granting 312 Letter Motion to Seal. The proposed redactions are approved. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/29/2021) (jca)
January 28, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 316 ORDER: In a letter of January 28, 2021, defendant Frank Esposito requested that this case be stayed. It is hereby ORDERED that any opposition to Esposito's requests shall be submitted by February 1, 2021. (Responses due by 2/1/2021) (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/28/2021) (jca)
January 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 308 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 280 Motion to Compel. The plaintiffs' January 19, 2021 motion to compel testimony from Ringel is denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/27/2021) (nb)
January 26, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 307 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that a conference to resolve this dispute is scheduled for Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 2:00pm. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the conference will be held telephonically. The parties shall use the following dial -in credentials for the telephone conference: Dial-in: 888-363-4749 Access code: 4324948 The parties shall use a landline if one is available. (Telephone Conference set for 1/27/2021 at 02:00 PM before Judge Denise L. Cote.) (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/26/2021) (jca)
January 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 305 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 294 Letter Motion to Seal. he motion to redact is granted with respect to the second highlighted sentence starting with "Here" and footnote 2. The motion is otherwise denied. By January 26, 2021, Melissa Ringel shall file a redacted version in public view in accordance with this memorandum endorsement. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/25/2021) (jca)
January 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 291 ORDER granting 270 Letter Motion for Discovery to the following extent. It is hereby ordered that Feldman will disclose by Monday, January 25, 2021 whether he has already produced to the plaintiffs all the material in his possession that is res ponsive to the request identified at the beginning of this Order. If Feldman has withheld from production any communications because he contends that they are privileged or irrelevant, he shall state so clearly. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on January 21, 2021) (vs)
January 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 284 ORDER granting 279 Letter Motion to Seal. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on January 19, 2021) (vs)
January 8, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 257 ORDER. It is hereby ordered that the plaintiffs shall respond to the Dorsey defendants letter of January 8 by Monday, January 11, 2021. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on January 8, 2021) (vs)
January 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 255 ORDER denying 253 JOINT MOTION to Seal unredacted versions of certain ECF-filed documents and redact the filed public view versions. Accordingly, it is herebyORDERED that the plaintiffs' request is denied. (And as further set forth herein.) (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/4/2021) (jca)
December 30, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 252 ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Esposito's request is denied. (And as further set forth herein.) (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 12/30/2020) (jca)
November 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 246 ORDER. It is hereby ordered that the parties shall confer and agree no later than November 17 on a date for the Sanford deposition. The deposition shall take place no later than November 24. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on November 16, 2020) (vs)
November 12, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 240 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the portion of the Order of November 11 that permitted plaintiffs to serve Mr. Sanford by email is vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Sanford's request of November 12 for an extension to respond to plaintif fs' November 10 application is granted. Mr. Sanford shall file his objection to plaintiffs' request to serve a deposition subpoena by email by Friday, November 13, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs may file a response to Mr. Sanford's objection by November 16, 2020 at noon. That response shall address the inconsistency between Mr. Berry's representations to the Court on November 10 and 12, recited above. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 11/12/2020) (jca)
November 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 235 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. ORDERED that plaintiffs may serve Mr. Sanford by email, having already attempted on three occasions to serve him at his residence and having left a copy of the subpoena there. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Nadel shall advise plaintiffs counsel by November 12 at 10:00a.m. whether she will accept service on behalf of Mr. Phillips. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs may serve Mr. Bronfman through an email to Ms. Nadel, having already hand delivered a subpoena for his deposition to her law firm. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any objection to this Order shall be filed no later than November 12 at noon. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs counsel shall immediately email this Order to Mr. Sanford and Ms. Nadel. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 11-11-2020) (vs)
July 30, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 224 ORDER granting 213 Letter Motion to Stay. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims against Sanford are dismissed in both the Phillips Action and the Esposito Action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Phillips Action is stayed pending th e completion of discovery and any summary judgment practice in the Esposito Action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Phillips Action and the Esposito Action shall be consolidated for trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Michael Phillips shall be permitted to participate in discovery in the Esposito Action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Esposito's request for a ninety-day stay of discovery is granted. The following schedule shall govern the further conduct of pretrial proceedings in the Esposito Action: All fact and expert discovery must be completed by May 14, 2021. Any motion for Summary Judgment, Motion served by May 28, 2021, Opposition served by June 18, Reply served by July 1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should any par ty object to a portion of this Order other than the stay of discovery in the Esposito Action, they may file a letter on ECF no longer than two pages by August 7, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the conference scheduled for July 31, 2020 is cancel led. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall attempt to resolve any discovery dispute in good faith through a meet and confer process. Should a dispute remain unresolved after that process, it may be brought to the Court's attention in a letter no longer than two pages. SO ORDERED. ***Hearings Terminated*** The following hearing(s) was terminated: Telephone Conference. Michael H. Sanford and Michael H. Sanford terminated. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 7/30/2020) (jca)
July 17, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 217 ORDER: An Order of July 13, 2020 directed the parties to submit proposed schedules for discovery by July 24. On July 16, defendant Frank Esposito requested a 90-day stay of discovery. The plaintiffs oppose the stay. It is hereby ORDERED that the Court will address Esposito's request for a stay after it receives the submissions due July 24. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 7/17/2020) (jca)
June 1, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 201 ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint so long as they do so by June 15, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants' time to answer the first amended complaint is extended until June 20, 2020. Nathaniel H Akerman answer due 6/20/2020; Dorsey & Whitney LLP answer due 6/20/2020; Frank M. Esposito answer due 6/20/2020; Edward S Feldman answer due 6/20/2020.( Amended Pleadings due by 6/15/2020.) (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 6/1/2020) (jca)
June 13, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 171 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.......For the foregoing reasons, if the Court of Appeals were to remand this case, the Knopfs motion would be denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 6/14/2019) (gr)
July 25, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 160 OPINION & ORDER.....The Knopfs May 21, 2018 motion for Rule 60(b) relief is granted solely to the extent of reducing the sanctions award in favor of Dorsey to $88,928.75, jointly and severally against Berry and the Knopfs, and vacating the sanctions award in favor of Esposito. The motion is otherwise denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 7/25/2018) (gr)
March 5, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 106 OPINION & ORDER.....Feldmans December 26, 2017 motion for attorneys fees is denied. Akermans December 26 motion for attorneys fees is denied. Dorseys December 26 motion for fees is granted in the amount of $177,857.50, jointly and severally ag ainst Berry and the Knopfs, insofar as it seeks fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Espositos December 27 motion for attorneys fees and sanctions is granted in the amount of $20,000, against Berry individually, under the Courts inherent power. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/5/2018) (gr)
December 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 80 OPINION AND ORDER.....The defendants September 7, October 13, and October 16 motions to dismiss are granted. The sole federal claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and they are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 12/7/2017) (gr)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Knopf et al v. Esposito et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Frank M. Esposito
Represented By: Frank Michael Esposito
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Nathaniel H Akerman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Edward S Feldman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael Hayden Sanford
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Knopf
Represented By: Eric William Berry
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Norma Knopf
Represented By: Eric William Berry
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?