Accettola v. He

S.D. New York

Accettola v. He

DecidedJune 25, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-01983

StatusUnknown

This text of Accettola v. He (Accettola v. He) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Accettola v. He, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: cence cnne ccna nana cana nnncnn cnna anna cnsannsa DATE FILED:__ 6/25/24 HONG DANIELLE ACCETTOLA, : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-1983 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER LINDA MEI HE et al., : Defendants. : wane KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff has requested by letter dated June 24, 2024, Dkt. No. 45, to withdraw and strike from the docket Plaintiff's prior sealed ex parte letter dated June 18, 2024, Dkt. No. 43. The request to strike is denied. The only authority for a motion to strike of which the Court is aware is that contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019). Rule 12(f) provides that a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “However, motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are generally ‘disfavored and granted only if there is strong reason to do so.’” Sweigert v. Goodman, 2021 WL 603069, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2021) (quoting Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., 2013 WL 1746062, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2013)); Beatie & Osborn LLP y. Patriot Sci. Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 367, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“The Second Circuit has made clear that district courts should be wary when deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(f) motion on the ground that the matter is impertinent and immaterial.”) (citing Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976)). Plaintiff has not cited any strong reason to do so. Plaintiff alludes to the existence of an order implicated by the material in the letter but she does not provide the Court a copy of the Order and, while Plaintiff admits that she does not know the contents of the Order, no other person or party states that disclosure of the letter would violate the Order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request is DENIED. The Court plans to direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the letter at Dkt. No. 43 on June 26, 2024. SO ORDERED. Y fp, > Dated: June 25, 2024 — £ AA New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: cence cnne ccna nana cana nnncnn cnna anna cnsannsa DATE FILED:__ 6/25/24 HONG DANIELLE ACCETTOLA, : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-1983 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER LINDA MEI HE et al., : Defendants. : wane KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff has requested by letter dated June 24, 2024, Dkt. No. 45, to withdraw and strike from the docket Plaintiff's prior sealed ex parte letter dated June 18, 2024, Dkt. No. 43. The request to strike is denied. The only authority for a motion to strike of which the Court is aware is that contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019). Rule 12(f) provides that a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “However, motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are generally ‘disfavored and granted only if there is strong reason to do so.’” Sweigert v. Goodman, 2021 WL 603069, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2021) (quoting Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., 2013 WL 1746062, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2013)); Beatie & Osborn LLP y. Patriot Sci. Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 367, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“The Second Circuit has made clear that district courts should be wary when deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(f) motion on the ground that the matter is impertinent and immaterial.”) (citing Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976)). Plaintiff has not cited any strong reason to do so. Plaintiff alludes to the existence of an order implicated by the material in the letter but she does not provide the Court a copy of the Order and, while Plaintiff admits that she does not know the contents of the Order, no other person or party states that disclosure of the letter would violate the Order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request is DENIED. The Court plans to direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the letter at Dkt. No. 43 on June 26, 2024. SO ORDERED. Y fp, > Dated: June 25, 2024 — £ AA New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Accettola v. He, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/accettola-v-he-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack