Castillo v. Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-10544
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Castillo v. Derek Smith Law Group, Judge Castel required a filing and denied plaintiffs’ sealing request without prejudice.
The plaintiffs and the defendants involved in the proposed motions to dismiss, as well as anyone seeking to seal or oppose sealing defendant Siegal’s deposition transcript.
What happened
In Castillo v. Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, defendants proposed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a legal claim. The plaintiffs’ responses did not follow the judge’s required format.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a complying letter by March 22, 2024. It also said anyone seeking to seal, or opposing the sealing of, defendant Siegal’s deposition transcript had to file a motion by April 1, 2024, addressing the required legal standard and providing redacted and unredacted versions as appropriate.
Judge Castel denied the plaintiffs’ motion to seal without prejudice, meaning the issue could be raised again through the required process.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC · No. 1:23-cv-10544
- P. Castel
- Mar. 21, 2024
Background
The court reviewed pre-motion letters concerning proposed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The proposed motions were to be filed by Derek Smith Law Group PLLC, Derek T. Smith, Johnmack Cohen, Abraham Melamed, Alexander Cabecerias, and Yaakov Siegel. The plaintiffs’ responses did not follow the format required by the court’s Individual Practices, paragraphs 3(A)(iv) and 3(A)(v).
The plaintiffs also sought to seal the deposition transcript of defendant Siegal. The court stated that the transcript appeared material to the action and was an unfiled exhibit to the complaint. The court explained that a confidentiality order from a prior action did not itself permit the transcript to be sealed in this case. Any sealing request had to satisfy the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
Court’s Actions
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter complying with paragraph 3(A)(iv) of the Individual Practices by March 22, 2024.
The court directed any person seeking to be heard about sealing the transcript to file a motion by April 1, 2024, explaining why the transcript should or should not be sealed under the Lugosch standard. Anyone seeking to seal all or part of the transcript also had to submit redacted and unredacted versions to chambers, with the redacted version showing any proposed partial redactions.
The court denied the motion to seal without prejudice. The opinion does not rule on the proposed Rule 12(b)(6) motions themselves.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.