Search court records - party Seetha Ramachandran, page 2

No. 416 ORDER: The Court has presided over this action from its commencement, including ruling on ...

Document Fairstein v. Netflix, Inc. et al, 1:20-cv-08042, No. 416 (S.D.N.Y. May. 23, 2024)

The respective timekeepers shall meet and confer and submit their agreed-upon calculation, and any disputes relating thereto shall be presented to the Court at the beginning of the next trial day.

The Court anticipates ruling on the objections in real time as the deposition is played or read to the jury.

The parties shall make arrangements for the playing of the full series at the times ordered by the Court.

Evid., the Court ORDERS that any person who is expected to testify as a witness shall be excluded from the courtroom and precluded from accessing trial testimony until after the witness has completed his or her testimony, except the plaintiff, the two individual defendants and a corporate representative of Netflix who shall be designated prior to trial.

The Court will meet with counsel in Courtroom 11D at 9:15 a.m. on June 10, 2024, immediately prior to the commencement of jury selection.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- P. Kevin Castel
Analyze Party
- Linda Fairstein
Analyze Firm
- Cheffy Passidomo
- Nesenoff & Miltenberg

No. 414 ORDER ON SEALING granting 375 Motion to Seal; withdrawing 380 Motion for Pre-Trial; withdrawing ...

Document Fairstein v. Netflix, Inc. et al, 1:20-cv-08042, No. 414 (S.D.N.Y. May. 21, 2024)

The Letter Agreement is two pages in length, and it identifies sums to be paid to Fairstein as advances for future books that Penguin would no longer publish.

At the Final Pretrial Conference of April 3, 2024, the Court ruled that Bania and Kaplan would be precluded from testifying, for reasons unrelated to the contents of the Letter Agreement.

The Court concludes that the Letter Agreement and the parties’ filings referencing its terms are judicial documents, but that they are not afforded the highest presumption of public access associated with dispositive motions and trial materials.

Weighing these harms to a non-party against the presumption of access afforded to these materials, the Court concludes that the continued sealing and redaction of these documents is appropriate, and Penguin’s motion will be granted.

Lastly, for the reasons explained in the September Order addressing the same document (see ECF 217 at 8), DuVernay’s agreement with Storybuilders, LLC may be filed under seal.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- P. Kevin Castel
Analyze Party
- Linda Fairstein
Analyze Firm
- Cheffy Passidomo
- Nesenoff & Miltenberg

No. 2063 ORDER to Michael Lacey (1), Scott Spear (3) and John Brunst (4): IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' ...

Document USA v. Lacey et al, 2:18-cr-00422, No. 2063 (D.Ariz. Apr. 23, 2024)

They also point out that none of the ads in Counts 2–18 contain TER links or even a TER number.

Though the Court finds that there was insufficient evidence of Mr. Lacey’s intent, the Court will nonetheless deny his Motion as to Counts 2–18 because there was sufficient evidence under Pinkerton, as described below, for a rational ...

... access them.” Though the Government has not provided the Court with a case in which a defendant’s intent to shield assets from government seizure amounted to concealment under Subsection 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), the Court nonetheless ...

Nonetheless, they accuse the Government of failing to produce this material under Brady and say this failure warrants a new trial. (Doc.

Nonetheless, a criminal conviction can be overturned based on a prosecutor’s comments if they affected the fundamental fairness of the trial.

Cite Document

Analyze

+ More Snippets

No. 157 ORDER as to Delmer Gowing: The Government's Letter Request (ECF No. 156) to adjourn the deadline ...

Document USA v. Scheringer et al., 1:05-cr-00782, No. 157 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2024)

Case 1:05-cr-00782-GBD Document 157 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of1

782-2 (GBD) The Government’s Letter Request (ECF No. 156) to adjourn the deadline to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Retroactive Application of Amendment 821 is GRANTED.

The deadline is extended from April 17, 2024, to May 1, 2024.

Dated: New York, New York April 18, 2024

United States District Judge

Cite Document

Analyze

No. 405 ORDER: Seven motions for sealing or redaction remain pending in this case

Document Fairstein v. Netflix, Inc. et al, 1:20-cv-08042, No. 405 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2024)

Seven motions for sealing or redaction remain pending in this case.

(ECF 238, 258, 271, 279, 375, 380, 385.)

Following the Final Pretrial Conference, counsel to both parties indicated that certain of these motions would be withdrawn.

Counsel are directed to confer and to file a joint letter no later than April 19, 2024 stating which motions for sealing or redaction are voluntarily dismissed.

Dated: New York, New York April 11, 2024

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- P. Kevin Castel
Analyze Party
- Linda Fairstein
Analyze Firm
- Cheffy Passidomo
- Nesenoff & Miltenberg

No. 154 ORDER as to (05-Cr-782-2) Delmer Gowing

Document USA v. Scheringer et al., 1:05-cr-00782, No. 154 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024)

Case 1:05-cr-00782-GBD Document 154 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of1

05 Crim.

782-2 (GBD) The Governmentis directed to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Retroactive Application of Amendment 821 by April 17, 2024.

Dated: New York, New York March 28, 2024

Cite Document

Analyze

USA v. Tanner et al

Docket 1:17-cr-00061, New York Southern District Court (Jan. 26, 2017)

Motion to Dismiss

Judge Loretta A. Preska, presiding

Division	Foley Square
Flags	CLOSED, APPEAL, ECF
Defendant	Gary Tanner
Defendant	Andrew Davenport
Interested Party	Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund
...