Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 25, 2024

Accettola v. He

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:23-cv-01983
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Accettola v. He, Judge Liman denied the plaintiff’s request to strike a sealed letter from the docket and planned to unseal it.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Hong Danielle Accettola’s request concerning her sealed letter at Dkt. No. 43 and the letter’s status on the court docket.

What happened

In Accettola v. He, the plaintiff asked to withdraw and remove from the docket a sealed letter she had previously filed. The letter was docketed as Dkt. No. 43.

The court denied the request to strike. It said requests to strike are generally disfavored, and the plaintiff had not shown a strong reason for removing the letter. The court also noted that she had not provided the order she believed might restrict the letter’s disclosure and admitted she did not know that order’s contents.

Judge Lewis J. Liman said the court planned to direct the clerk to unseal the letter on June 26, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Accettola v. He · No. 1:23-cv-01983
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
June 25, 2024

Background

Hong Danielle Accettola asked the court, in a June 24, 2024 letter, to withdraw and strike from the docket her earlier sealed ex parte letter, filed as Dkt. No. 43 on June 18, 2024.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that the only authority for a motion to strike of which it was aware was Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). That rule allows a court to remove from a pleading an insufficient defense or matter that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court explained that such motions are generally disfavored and granted only when there is a strong reason to do so.

Accettola referred to an order that she suggested might be implicated by the letter’s contents, but she did not provide the court with a copy of that order. She also admitted that she did not know the order’s contents. The court noted that no other person or party had stated that disclosing the letter would violate the order. The court concluded that Accettola had not identified a strong reason to strike the letter.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Accettola’s request to strike the letter. The court stated that it planned to direct the clerk to unseal the letter at Dkt. No. 43 on June 26, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.