Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-10578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting, Judge Nathan denied Shukla’s request for injunctive relief and granted his request to seal documents.
Ashu Shukla’s requests for emergency injunctive relief and to seal documents were affected; Deloitte Consulting LLP was the opposing defendant. The underlying employment claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Ashu Shukla asked the court to stop Deloitte from allegedly attacking him with chemical and biomedical devices, threatening and harassing him online, and engaging in other abusive conduct. The opinion says Shukla had previously sued Deloitte, described as his former employer, over state-law harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination claims.
To obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, Shukla had to make a clear showing of likely irreparable harm and satisfy other requirements concerning the merits, hardships, and public interest. The court found that his filings did not substantiate his allegations and did not provide a basis to conclude that he would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Shukla’s motion for injunctive relief and granted his request to seal certain documents because of privacy concerns. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP · No. 1:19-cv-10578
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
Ashu Shukla filed a complaint against Deloitte Consulting Group LLP, described in the opinion as his former employer, alleging state-law harassment, discrimination, a hostile work environment, and wrongful termination. Deloitte removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Shukla later filed an emergency motion seeking a permanent injunction, a preliminary injunction, and/or a temporary restraining order. He asked the court to prohibit alleged biochemical or medical attacks, online harassment and bullying, and other abusive conduct or contact. His filings alleged that Deloitte had used remote-operated devices and weapons against him, sent threatening or harassing messages, and created fabricated online news stories. Deloitte opposed the motion, denied engaging in the alleged conduct, and argued that Shukla had not established a basis for injunctive relief.
Shukla also moved to seal documents submitted with his emergency motion, asserting that they contained confidential business information and sexually explicit pictures.
Legal standard
A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are emergency forms of injunctive relief. The court explained that the person seeking one must show irreparable harm without the order, either a likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question suitable for trial combined with a decisive balance of hardships, and that the public interest supports the order. The court described this relief as drastic and said it requires a clear showing.
Court’s analysis and rulings
The court found that Shukla’s filings did not substantiate his allegations of regular biochemical attacks, online harassment, or fabricated news stories. It therefore found no basis to conclude that he would suffer irreparable harm without court intervention and denied his motion for injunctive relief.
The court granted Shukla’s request to seal certain documents because he showed that they raised privacy concerns strong enough to overcome the presumption that court documents should be publicly accessible. The court stated that the rulings resolved docket numbers 96 and 100.
Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.