Berryman v. Reading International, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-00750
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Berryman v. Reading International, Judge Engelmayer ordered supplemental letters about whether a privacy claim remains subject to dismissal.
Haley Berryman and others similarly situated, and Reading International, Inc.; the order required them to submit additional letters concerning the Video Privacy Protection Act claim.
What happened
In Berryman v. Reading International, Inc., Haley Berryman told the court about a Second Circuit decision that appeared to undermine Reading International’s effort to dismiss or strike her Video Privacy Protection Act claim.
The court ordered Reading to state whether it still seeks dismissal and, if so, explain why its position is consistent with that decision. Berryman may respond, and Reading may reply. The letters must not address Berryman’s separate claim under New York’s Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
Judge Engelmayer did not decide the dismissal motion or the merits of either claim. He set deadlines for the supplemental submissions.
The detailed version
- Berryman v. Reading International, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00750
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 18, 2024
Background
On October 15, 2024, Haley Berryman, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, notified the court of a Second Circuit decision in a different case. The court stated that the decision appeared to undermine Reading International, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and/or strike Berryman’s claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The court said it was unclear whether Reading would continue to argue that the claim did not state a legally valid claim.
Order
The court directed the parties to submit supplemental letters addressing the motion to dismiss the Video Privacy Protection Act claim in light of the Second Circuit decision. Reading’s letter was due November 1, 2024, and had to state whether Reading continued to seek dismissal and, if so, explain why that position was compatible with the Second Circuit decision. If Reading continued to pursue the motion, Berryman’s opposition was due November 15, 2024, and any reply was due November 22, 2024.
The court expressly excluded Berryman’s claim under the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law from the supplemental submissions. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss, strike either claim, or decide the merits of the Video Privacy Protection Act claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.