Coenterprise, LLC v. Jones
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-00543
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Coenterprise, LLC v. Jones, Judge Furman attached a counsel’s overbroad email with limited redactions and sealed the unredacted version.
Coenterprise, LLC, Kevin Donelson Jones, their counsel, and the handling of the email submitted to the court.
What happened
Coenterprise, LLC v. Jones involved an email from CoEnterprise’s lawyers before a scheduled telephone conference. The court had authorized the parties to email only the names, honorifics, and phone numbers of lawyers who might speak.
CoEnterprise’s lawyers provided that information but also included other matters and asked the court for relief. The email discussed the lack of information about lawyers for Kevin Donelson Jones, efforts to serve Jones, and whether the court should question him if he proceeded without a lawyer. Some of the email’s contents are redacted in the opinion.
Judge Furman ruled that the email went beyond what the court had allowed and violated the court’s rule requiring court communications to be made by electronically filed letters unless an exception applies. He attached the email with limited redactions and ordered that the unredacted email be filed and kept under seal.
The detailed version
- Coenterprise, LLC v. Jones · No. 1:25-cv-00543
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
The court’s January 23, 2025 order directed the parties to send a joint email before a scheduled telephone conference. The permitted email was limited to the names and honorifics of counsel who might speak and the telephone numbers from which counsel expected to join the call.
CoEnterprise’s counsel sent the court an email containing that information, but also included additional matters and requested relief. The email addressed the absence of information about counsel who might appear for Kevin Donelson Jones, efforts to serve Jones with the summons and complaint, and a request that the court ask Jones certain questions if he proceeded without counsel. Portions of the email are redacted in the opinion, and the opinion does not disclose the underlying claims or the relief requested in the lawsuit.
Court’s Action
The court stated that the email exceeded the limited communication it had authorized and violated its Individual Rules and Practices. Those rules generally require communications with the court to be made by a letter filed electronically through the court’s filing system. The court attached the email with limited redactions to protect Jones’s privacy interests and stated that it would file and maintain the unredacted email under seal. This order addressed court communications and confidentiality; it did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.