Pasha v. New York State Department of Health

Background

Talha Pasha, who was representing himself, filed several motions seeking to strike Document 55 and related documents from the public record. Document 55 was a February 20, 2024 letter from counsel for the New York State Department of Health. The letter described 34 emails Pasha had sent to that counsel over two months as becoming excessive and harassing and attached those emails.

After giving Pasha an opportunity to respond, the court directed him on March 1, 2024, to consolidate his requests for information where possible to limit his communications with opposing counsel. Pasha later moved to strike Document 55. On May 13, 2024, the court denied that motion because Document 55 had served as a basis for judicial decision-making, creating a presumption that the public could inspect it. On June 6, 2024, the court denied Pasha’s first request for reconsideration.

Second Request for Reconsideration

Pasha filed a second request for reconsideration and later submitted additional arguments. He argued that his motion to strike had been filed before Document 55 served as a basis for judicial decision-making, that Document 55 contained fabricated facts and flawed legal conclusions, and that the attached emails were part of confidential settlement discussions.

The court explained that reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate an issue already decided. A party seeking reconsideration must identify controlling decisions or facts that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its conclusion.

The court rejected Pasha’s first argument because he filed the motion to strike on April 22, 2024, after the court’s March 1 order directing him to limit his communications with opposing counsel. The court found that his second argument merely sought to relitigate issues already decided in the May 13 and June 6 orders.

The court acknowledged that confidential settlement negotiations generally should not be publicly filed. It nevertheless found that the emails did not plausibly discuss confidential settlement negotiations. The emails referred to a more favorable settlement and Pasha’s willingness to settle the matter out of court, but did not include proposed settlement terms or other sensitive information.

Appeal-Fee Request and Disposition

Pasha also moved for permission to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees. The court noted that its July 26, 2024 order had already denied him that status for an appeal. The court therefore denied the new request as well.

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Pasha’s second request for reconsideration. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Pasha permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate Motions 109 and 112.