Listokin v. Miller Zeiderman LLP
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-02605
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Listokin v. Miller Zeiderman LLP, Judge Halpern granted an application to seal a filing, limiting access to the parties and Court.
The defendants, Miller Zeiderman LLP and Lisa Zeiderman, received permission to keep Doc. 14 sealed; access is limited to the parties and the Court.
What happened
In Listokin v. Miller Zeiderman LLP, the defendants asked to file a request related to a planned motion to dismiss with redactions and to keep the unredacted version sealed.
The defendants said the redactions were needed to protect personal information from an underlying matrimonial case. The plaintiff’s counsel did not consent to the request.
Judge Halpern granted the application, ordered Doc. 14 sealed and accessible only to the parties and the Court, preserved the summary docket text, and terminated the motion listed at Doc. 13.
The detailed version
- Listokin v. Miller Zeiderman LLP · No. 7:22-cv-02605
- Philip Halpern
- June 22, 2022
Background
Yehuda Listokin sued Miller Zeiderman LLP and Lisa Zeiderman over alleged legal malpractice related to the defendants’ handling of an underlying matrimonial action. The defendants sought permission to file a request for a pre-motion conference with redactions while keeping the unredacted version under seal. They said this was necessary to comply with New York Domestic Relations Law § 235 and protect personal information concerning people involved in the underlying matrimonial action other than Listokin.
The defendants’ request anticipated a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The opinion does not decide that anticipated motion. The court had previously granted Listokin’s request to file the Complaint under seal.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It directed the Clerk to seal Doc. 14, allowing access only to the parties and the Court while retaining the summary docket text for the record. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion listed at Doc. 13. Judge Philip M. Halpern’s order did not rule on the merits of the legal-malpractice allegations or the anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.