Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc.
| 1:2020cv04982 |
| August 28, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 2707 Civil Action: Stored Communications |
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
71
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 70 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Twitter, Inc. against Ali Al-Ahmed. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated August 11, 2021, Twitter's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Because the Court did not rely on the materials that Twitter contends are subject to judicial notice, Twitter's motion for judicial notice is DENIED as moot; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 8/12/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER & OPINION: re: 57 MOTION to Take Judicial Notice re: 50 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Twitter, Inc., 50 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Twitter, Inc., 36 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Twitter, Inc., 43 MOTION Requesting Judicial Notice Rega rding Motion to Dismiss re: 36 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Twitter, Inc. For the reasons discussed above, Twitter's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Because the Court did not rely on the materials that Twitter contends are subject to judicial notice, Twitter's motion for judicial notice is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate all open motions, to cancel all deadlines, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/11/2021) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 35 Letter Motion to Seal. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Twitter's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, for the following reasons: Defendant Twitter proposed redacting the identifying information of its employee declarant, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations, the related criminal investigation, and the desire to avoid potential harassment or retaliation. Dkt. 35 at 3. The Court finds that the need to protect the employee from poss ible reprisal constitutes a higher value sufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Therefore, the request to redact the identifying information of the employee declaran t is GRANTED. Defendant Twitter proposed redacting the user identification numbers of Plaintiff's Twitter account and those belonging to third-party account holders. See Dkt. 35 at 12 (referring to Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Twitter Employee Declar ation). Additionally, Twitter proposed redacting Plaintiff's telephone number from a public Twitter post and his telephone number and email address from a public press release. See Dkt. 35 at 5 (referring to Exhibits C and D to the Declaration o f Anjali Srinivasan). The Court finds that the personal privacy interests of the third-party account holders and of Plaintiff in his contact information outweighs the presumption of public access. See Valassis Commc'ns,Inc. v. News Corp., No. 17 -CV-7378, 2020 WL 2190708, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020). As such, these requests are GRANTED. Twitter proposed and Plaintiff Al-Ahmed did not object to redacting a private message Al-Ahmed sent from his now-suspended Arabic language Twitter account t o a third-party Twitter user, who, in turn, reported the message to Twitter. See Dkt. 35 at 5 (referring to Exhibit 5 to the Twitter Employee Declaration). The Court recognizes that the content of this repugnant message may be embarrassing for Plaint iff Al-Ahmed. But avoiding embarrassment is not the type of "higher value" that justifies overcoming the presumption of immediate public access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. In short, this request is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendan t Twitter must refile its Motion to Dismiss and supporting exhibits in line with this Order by no later than Monday, November 9, 2020. The Court reminds Defendant Twitter to follow Rule 5B of the Court's Individual Practices, including that prop osed redactions must be highlighted in the unredacted documents filed under seal on ECF. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry 35. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 11/06/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the initial conference currently scheduled for September 4, 2020, is adjourned pending further order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/28/2020) (ama)
|
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
| Search for this case: Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
