Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Dec. 9, 2020

Elavon, Inc. v. Northeast Advance Technologies Inc.

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:15-cv-07985
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Elavon v. Northeast Advance Technologies, Judge Karas ordered explanations for redactions and conflict waivers without ruling on Elavon’s disqualification motion.

Who this affects

Elavon, Inc., the defendants, their counsel Cohen, LaBarbera and Landrigan LLP, and the public because the order concerns redacted court filings and documents to be filed on the docket.

What happened

Elavon, Inc. sued Northeast Advance Technologies Inc. and several individuals over alleged contract breaches, guaranty breaches, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Elavon later asked the court to disqualify the law firm Cohen, LaBarbera and Landrigan LLP from continuing in the case.

The parties filed briefing on that request, but they redacted parts of their filings without first asking the court for permission. The court asked each side to file a letter explaining why the redacted material should remain hidden under applicable Second Circuit precedent. The court also ordered the defendants to file copies of conflict waivers referenced in their opposition.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not state that he granted or denied the disqualification motion. The December 9, 2020 order addressed the redactions and conflict-waiver documents instead.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Elavon, Inc. v. Northeast Advance Technologies Inc. · No. 7:15-cv-07985
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Dec. 9, 2020

Background

Elavon, Inc. sued Northeast Advance Technologies, Inc., Samuel Brach, Joshua Brach, Esteban Castillo, Joel Friedman, and Rivky Friedman. The complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of guaranty, fraud, and fraud in the inducement. Elavon filed a motion seeking to disqualify Cohen, LaBarbera and Landrigan LLP from further participation in the litigation. The defendants opposed the motion, and Elavon filed a reply.

Court’s directives

The parties had redacted portions of their motion papers without asking the court for permission. The court directed each side to file a letter explaining why the redacted material should remain confidential under the standards discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and other Second Circuit precedent.

The court also ordered the defendants to file copies of the conflict waivers referenced in their opposition papers.

Disposition

The order does not state that the court granted or denied Elavon’s motion to disqualify counsel. It directs additional filings concerning the redactions and requires the defendants to place the conflict waivers on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.