Solid 21, Inc. v. Richemont North America, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-01262
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Solid 21 v. Richemont North America, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice defendants’ request to dismiss the case because Solid 21 had not yet hired replacement counsel.
Solid 21, Inc., its prospective replacement counsel, defendants, and former counsel David Hecht. The order denied defendants’ dismissal request for the time being and imposed deadlines concerning counsel and access to case documents.
What happened
Solid 21, Inc. was ordered to obtain new counsel by January 16, 2023. Solid 21 told the court that it was still trying to find counsel and that a potential lawyer needed access to additional case materials, including documents marked for review only by attorneys.
Defendants asked the court to enter a default judgment because Solid 21 had not met the deadline. The court treated that request as a request to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. It also set deadlines for Solid 21’s potential counsel, defendants, and former counsel David Hecht to address access to the documents and any protective-order restrictions.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied defendants’ request without prejudice to renewing it later. The court required Solid 21 to keep the court informed about its efforts to find counsel and warned that the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Solid 21 does not timely retain replacement counsel.
The detailed version
- Solid 21, Inc. v. Richemont North America, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01262
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 20, 2023
Background
An earlier order required Solid 21, Inc. to secure new counsel by January 16, 2023. On that date, Solid 21 sent the court an ex parte email—an email sent without participation by the opposing side—describing its continuing efforts to retain counsel. Solid 21 said that prospective counsel needed access to additional case materials to assess the case, including documents that defendants had produced on an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” basis.
On January 19, 2023, defendants filed a letter seeking default judgment on the ground that Solid 21 had not obtained counsel by the court-ordered deadline.
Rulings and requirements
The court construed defendants’ application as a request for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with a court order. The court denied the application without prejudice to renewal at a later date.
The court ordered that Solid 21 could keep its January 16 letter under seal only if it submitted another ex parte letter by January 24, 2023, explaining why the earlier letter should remain sealed. Otherwise, the earlier letter would be filed on the court’s electronic docket.
By February 3, 2023, prospective new counsel had to tell the court whether they were interested in potentially representing Solid 21, what additional documents they needed and why, and whether they would accept all restrictions in the case’s protective order. By February 10, defendants had to state whether they agreed to disclosure of the documents to Solid 21 or to prospective counsel under the “Attorney’s Eyes Only” restriction, and, if not, whether they would agree to other conditions. By the same date, former counsel David Hecht had to explain any reason other than the “Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation for withholding documents requested by Solid 21.
Solid 21 had to send a copy of the order to Mr. Hecht and any prospective counsel by January 23, 2023. If Solid 21 could not find prospective counsel to submit the required information by February 3, it had to send the court an ex parte status letter. The court stated that the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Solid 21 did not retain replacement counsel in a timely manner.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.