Bank v. New York State Department of Health
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-04817
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bank v. New York State Department of Health, Judge Woods granted remote participation for a pre-motion conference about defendants’ proposed dismissal motion.
The parties to the case and their attorneys, because the September 17, 2020 pre-motion conference will be held remotely rather than in person.
What happened
In Bank v. New York State Department of Health, the plaintiff’s attorney responded to defendants’ planned motion to dismiss. The attorney argued that the complaint adequately described the plaintiff’s desire to obtain direct-to-consumer laboratory tests and challenged New York’s regulation governing those tests.
The attorney also objected to holding the conference in person after the court had addressed whether it could be recorded. The attorney raised First Amendment and COVID-19 concerns and requested that the conference instead take place by telephone.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the application to hold the September 17, 2020 pre-motion conference remotely. The order did not decide the proposed motion to dismiss or the parties’ other legal arguments.
The detailed version
- Bank v. New York State Department of Health · No. 1:20-cv-04817
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 16, 2020
Background
The plaintiff’s attorney submitted a letter responding to defendants’ pre-motion letter about a proposed motion to dismiss. The letter addressed service of process, whether the complaint alleged a sufficiently concrete injury, and New York rules concerning direct-to-consumer laboratory tests.
The attorney argued that the complaint did not need to identify the specific medical tests the plaintiff wanted to take. The complaint allegedly stated that the plaintiff wished to purchase and receive direct-to-consumer laboratory tests at the plaintiff’s residence, and that New York regulation 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 58-1.8 prevented non-medical providers from shipping those tests to New York State. The attorney disputed defendants’ interpretation of Public Health Law § 576-b and the challenged regulation.
Request for a Remote Conference
The court had terminated a telephone conference and scheduled an in-person pre-motion conference. The attorney objected to the court’s directive against recording the telephone conference and argued that recording and refusing to disclose whether the attorney was recording were protected by the First Amendment. The attorney also raised concerns about public access to court proceedings and the risk of receiving or transmitting COVID-19 during an in-person courthouse conference.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the application to conduct the September 17, 2020 pre-motion conference by remote means. The court directed the parties to hold a teleconference at the scheduled time and to follow the court’s emergency rules, including the specified remote-conference requirements.
The order did not rule on defendants’ proposed motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s standing, the validity of the challenged regulation, or the attorney’s First Amendment arguments. It addressed only the method for conducting the pre-motion conference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.