Tatintsian v. Vorotyntsev

Background

Mikhail Vorotyntsev sent the court and opposing counsel three letters by email dated May 5 and May 6, 2025. The court docketed those letters. The court had repeatedly instructed Vorotyntsev not to communicate substantive matters by email and had previously informed him that he could seek permission to use the court’s electronic filing system.

Vorotyntsev also emailed a fourth letter dated May 6, 2025, but sent it only to the court and not to counsel for Gary Tatintsian. The letter included allegations and requests concerning alleged misconduct at the May 1 conference, references to evidence provided by Tatintsian’s counsel, and references to events allegedly involving Tatintsian.

Court’s directives

The court ordered Vorotyntsev to file all substantive communications through the Pro Se Intake Office or, after completing the required process, through the court’s electronic filing system. The court stated that the parties should not expect responses to substantive requests or filings sent by email and warned that failure to follow the instruction could result in sanctions, meaning court-imposed penalties.

The court found no good cause to keep the fourth May 6 letter under seal or to prevent opposing counsel from seeing it. The court gave Vorotyntsev until May 9, 2025, to show why the letter itself—not necessarily the evidence mentioned in it—should not be filed publicly. The court explained that judicial documents are generally presumed to be open to public access and that the person seeking secrecy bears the burden of showing a specific and compelling reason for sealing.

Deadlines and conference

The court scheduled a conference for May 13, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the issues raised in Vorotyntsev’s letters. It stated that the trial date and existing deadlines for pretrial materials were unchanged. Vorotyntsev was required to provide the court and opposing counsel with a witness list, an exhibit list, and PDF files of his exhibits by May 9, as previously ordered.

Because Vorotyntsev expressed concern about witness intimidation, the court allowed him to temporarily redact from his witness list only witnesses for whom he believed there was a legitimate risk of intimidation or retaliation. The court identified three such witnesses in his previously submitted list. Vorotyntsev had to be prepared to provide a complete, unredacted list at the May 13 conference if his requests were denied. The clerk was directed to mail him a copy of the order by certified mail.