Paravas v. Cerf
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-07463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Paravas v. Cerf, Magistrate Judge Moses sealed two filings and disregarded an unauthorized amended affidavit in the ongoing case.
The order directly affected Trisha Paravas’s amended affidavit and settlement-related letter, and it protected the confidentiality of the settlement negotiations involving Paravas and Dr. Moran Cerf. It did not decide the underlying allegations or Cerf’s defamation counterclaims.
What happened
In Paravas v. Cerf, Trisha Paravas sued Dr. Moran Cerf, and Cerf asserted defamation counterclaims. Paravas was representing herself. She filed an amended affidavit after her original motion papers and also publicly filed a letter discussing settlement negotiations.
The court said the amended affidavit was an unauthorized addition to Paravas’s earlier motion papers and that considering it would be unfair to Cerf. The court also said the settlement letter should have been sent confidentially rather than filed publicly.
The court disregarded the amended affidavit and directed the clerk to keep it and the settlement letter under electronic seal. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses issued the order on January 24, 2022.
The detailed version
- Paravas v. Cerf · No. 1:21-cv-07463
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 24, 2022
Background
Trisha Paravas sued Dr. Moran Cerf, accusing him of sexual assault and related misconduct. Cerf answered and asserted counterclaims for defamation. Paravas moved to dismiss those counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a pleading states a legally sufficient claim.
On the same day she filed that motion, Paravas filed an affidavit supporting the allegations in her complaint and making arguments about the evidence and the parties’ conduct. Later, after the court set deadlines for opposition and reply papers, she filed a 19-page amended affidavit. The amended affidavit repeated and expanded her earlier assertions, added new accusations and arguments, and again asked the court to dismiss Cerf’s counterclaim.
Paravas also filed a letter on the public docket discussing settlement terms and criticizing Cerf’s counsel. The court had directed the parties to submit substantive settlement materials confidentially by email and had warned that settlement discussions were confidential.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that litigation and motion practice follow an ordered sequence. Paravas had already filed her opening papers, and the court had not authorized her to supplement or expand them more than two months later. Because Cerf’s opposition papers were due shortly after the amended affidavit was filed, the court found that considering the new filing would be unfair to him. The court also noted that Paravas’s status as a self-represented litigant did not excuse compliance with court rules.
The court further explained that the amended affidavit was not a judicial document for purposes of the public-access analysis governing court records. It therefore would remain sealed. The settlement letter was also sealed because it was filed publicly even though the court had directed that substantive settlement-related materials be submitted confidentially.
Disposition
The court directed the clerk to place the settlement letter, docket entry 36, under electronic seal at a level accessible to Paravas, Cerf’s counsel, and the court and its staff. It directed the clerk to maintain the amended affidavit, docket entry 38, under electronic seal at its existing viewing level. The court disregarded the amended affidavit. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses issued and signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.