Bhagat v. Shah

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 19, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-01424·Unknown

Opinion

NE, S E NO FF & Ira S. Nesenoff Barbara H. Trapasso Susan E. Stark LW Andrew T. Miltenberg Robert Kaftari Regina M. Federico N LILTENB ERG LP Seat Benen Keston Molt Senior lineation Counsel New York | Boston | Palo Alto Tara J. Davis Helen Setton Gabrielle M. Vinci Rodman Streicher Marybeth Sydor ATTORNEYS AT LAW Christine Brown Kimberly Courtney Title IX Consultant Kara L. Gorycki nmllplaw.com

March 17, 2025 VIA ECF AND EMAIL TarmofskyNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov The Honorable Robyn F. Tarnofsky United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Bhagat v. Shah, Case No. 24-CV-01424 (VEC) Request to Redact Hearing Transcript Dear Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky, The undersigned represents Rushad Dordi (“Mr. Dordi”), who is not a party to the above- referenced action, in regard to the subpoena for documents and testimony dated January 6, 2025, which Your Honor ordered to be provided to Mr. Miltenberg on January 8, 2025 (the “Subpoena”). ECF No. 76. In accordance with Your Honor’s Individual Practices, we submit this letter request to redact portions of the transcript of the telephonic hearing that took place on February 14, 2025 (ECF 119, 125), concerning Defendant’s motion to compel Mr. Dordi’s response to the Subpoena. The portions of the hearing transcript that Mr. Dordi seeks to redact concern a confidential court proceeding. He also seeks to redact the name of a nonparty, an individual who has complained that Defendant harassed him. Your Honor previously ordered this information to be filed under seal in connection with the motion to compel. (ECF No. 111). “The privacy interests of third parties weigh heavily” in balancing the public’s right of access against the redaction or sealing of documents. U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-1051 (2d Cir. 1995); Fairstein v. Netflix, Inc., 2023 WL 6164293, at *2. The redactions are also narrowly tailored. Fairstein, 2023 WL 6164293, at *5-*6 (allowing sealing/redaction of nonparty communications with Plaintiff, some of which bore no relevance to the claims or defenses in the action). A highlighted copy of the transcript has been enclosed herewith for the Court’s review. The redactions sought are as follows:

363 Seventh Avenue | 5th Floor | New York, NY | 10001 | T: 212.736.4500 101 Federal Street | 19th Floor | Boston, MA | 02110 | T: 617.209.2188 4 Palo Alto Square | 3000 El Camino Real | Suite 200 | Palo Alto, CA | 94306 | T: 650.209.7400

NESENOFF & MILTENBERGuw New York | Boston | Palo Alto

/Page Limes) (8 16-24 10-12 12-17 23-25

21-22

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Kara L. Gorycki Encl. ce: all counsel of record via ECF

Non-party Rushad Dordi's motion to seal the transcript of the February 14, 2025 conference at ECF 118 is GRANTED. Non-party Dordi is directed to file a copy of the transcript with the redactions described in this letter-motion by March 31, 2025. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate ECF 142 and to not release the transcript restriction on ECF 118. 50 ORDERED man Dated: March 19, 2025 New York, NY ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

363 Seventh Avenue | 5th Floor | New York, NY | 10001 | T: 212.736.4500 101 Federal Street | 19th Floor | Boston, MA | 02110 | T: 617.209.2188 4 Palo Alto Square | 3000 El Camino Real | Suite 200 | Palo Alto, CA | 94306 | T: 650.209.7400

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

Bhagat v. Shah, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Bhagat v. Shah (Bhagat v. Shah) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Amodeo
71 F.3d 1044 (Second Circuit, 1995)