Nikonov v. Flirt Ny Inc.

Background

After a telephone conference with the parties, the court entered an order concerning two matters: anticipated summary-judgment briefing and potentially sealed papers relating to the withdrawal of the plaintiff’s prior counsel.

Summary-Judgment Briefing

The defendants planned to move for summary judgment, a procedure for asking the court to rule because the relevant facts allegedly do not require a trial. Their motion sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and asked the court not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

The defendants were ordered to file the motion and a required statement of undisputed facts under Local Civil Rule 56.1 by March 15, 2022. The plaintiff’s opposition and responsive Rule 56.1 statement were due March 22, 2022, and the defendants’ reply was due March 25, 2022. The parties’ papers had to address whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) permitted the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The order cited an earlier decision that found no supplemental jurisdiction over such claims, but it did not decide that issue in this case.

Potentially Sealed Papers

The order also concerned portions of papers associated with the plaintiff’s prior counsel’s motion to withdraw that related to a witness identified on page 19 of the joint pretrial order. The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing by March 15, 2022, explaining why those portions should not be unsealed. The defendants could file responsive papers by March 22, 2022.

The plaintiff’s submission had to address whether he asserted privilege or another protection over those portions, whether the crime-fraud exception applied, and whether any privilege or protection should be waived if he wished to continue prosecuting his claims. The plaintiff also had to confirm whether he agreed to waive any privilege or protection associated with the portions at issue. The order cited New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(b) and its Comment 12.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the briefing schedule and the show-cause submissions. The order did not grant or deny the anticipated summary-judgment motion, decide the jurisdiction question, or determine whether the papers would be unsealed.