Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 15, 2021

Eastern Profit Corporation Limited v. Strategic Vision US LLC

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:18-cv-02185
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Eastern Profit v. Strategic Vision, Judge Liman took no action on a press letter and asked counsel whether they wanted court action.

Who this affects

Counsel for Eastern Profit Corporation Limited and Strategic Vision US LLC were asked to state whether they wanted the court to act on the press letter. The order did not determine the access rights of the press or public.

What happened

Eastern Profit Corporation Limited v. Strategic Vision US LLC concerns a letter from Rocco Castoro, who identified himself as a member of the press and asked the court to keep the upcoming trial open. The letter argued that the press and public had rights to attend the proceedings.

The court said it intended to take no action on the letter because it was not presented as a motion. The court asked counsel for both parties to state by April 16, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., whether they wanted the court to take any action on it.

Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order on April 15, 2021. The order did not decide whether the trial would be open or whether any courtroom-sealing request should be granted or denied.

The detailed version

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

Case
Eastern Profit Corporation Limited v. Strategic Vision US LLC · No. 1:18-cv-02185
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Apr. 15, 2021

Background

The court received an attached letter from Rocco Castoro, who identified himself as a member of the press and editor-in-chief of The Knows. The letter asked the court to keep the case's trial open and opposed any request by Eastern Profit to close or seal the courtroom. The letter asserted that members of the press and public have rights of access to judicial proceedings under the First Amendment and the common law.

The letter also described the case as a breach-of-contract action and discussed reports that a party might seek to close part of the trial because a witness could invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Those descriptions and arguments appeared in the attached letter, not in the court's ruling.

Court's Action

The court stated that it intended to take no action on the letter because the letter was not framed as a motion. The court directed counsel for each party to inform it by Friday, April 16, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., whether counsel requested that the court take any action on the letter.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The order did not rule on whether the press or public had a right to attend the trial. It also did not grant or deny any request to seal or close the courtroom, and it did not resolve any issue concerning the witness's possible invocation of the Fifth Amendment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-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.