In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 8, 2023·No. 1:20-cv-05914·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

20 Civ. 5914 (PAE) In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On August 5, 2022, in a lengthy bench decision, the Court approved (1) the proposed class action settlement; and (2) attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards. See Dkts. 156-58. At that hearing, the Court denied class member Melissa Linden’s motion for joinder, Dkt. 123, and motion to stay, Dkt. 130, recognizing that the motions “appear to be premised on her assertion that the settlement does not provide adequate relief and concern with her future ability to bring claims against Morgan Stanley for issues relating to her deceased father’s account.” Dkt. 160 at 5. The Court noted that, to the extent that Linden believed she had claims against Morgan Stanley based on issues related to her father’s account, her recourse would have been to opt out of the class action. /d. at 5-6, Because Linden had not opted out of the class action, the Court respectfully denied her motions. Jd. at 6. Separately, the Court noted Linden’s objections to the settlement, see Dkt, 122, and at the hearing directed questions to plaintiffs’ counsel about those objections, Dkt. 160 at 75-77. This order addresses three pending motions by Linden: (1) a letter-motion to vacate the final judgment in this action, see Dkt. 192; (2) her objection to the deadline to request redactions to the transcript of the August 5, 2022 hearing, see Dkt. 193; and (3) a letter-motion to impose sanctions for alleged misconduct by counsel for defendant Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC

(“Morgan Stanley”), see Dkt. 194. The Court commissioned responses from plaintiffs, as to the motion to vacate, and from defendant’s counsel, as to the motion for sanctions. See Dkt. 195,! For the following reasons, the Court denies the relief sought. First, Linden moves to vacate the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), claiming that she was “erroneous[ly]” labeled as a “non-party” and “non-party joiner” on the docket. See Dkt. 192. She seeks relief including damages and the production of certain records. See id. Plaintiffs oppose her motion, noting that she was properly classified as a non- party because she was not a named plaintiff and that her motions were duly considered by the Court. See Dkt. 198, Plaintiffs are correct. Rule 60(b) allows a court to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment” based on, infer alia, “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Linden has not made any such showing here. She has failed to demonstrate that her classification on the docket and the Court’s rulings as to her motions were erroneous, let alone that any error justifies relief under Rule 60(b). Her allegations appear to relate to matters beyond the scope of this class action. The Court denies her motion, Second, Linden “object[s] to the termination of transcript deadline . . , and ask[s] for the transcript to be made available immediately,” asserting that “the people should be given access to the record of the Fairness hearing.” See Dkt. 193. This request appears to derive from the Court’s statement at the August 5, 2022 hearing that it would not issue a written decision, but instead would resolve the motions for settlement approval, and for fees and costs, in a bench

1 In a November 25, 2022 letter addressed to the Court, Linden took issue with various aspects of the Court’s order directing responses to her motions. See Dkt. 197. Her letter, although challenging to comprehend, appears to argue that, inter alia, the Court improperly characterized her as “disgruntle[d] about settlement monies.” See id. (attaching various filings), The Court does not find any allegations in the letter meritorious and denies the relief sought therein.

ruling. The Court added that, “ifthe content of what I say is important to you, you will need to order the transcript of this conference.” Dkt. 160 at 98. Under the August 18, 2022 notice of the filing of the official transcript of the fairness hearing, the parties had seven days to file any notice of intent to request redaction of the transcript; absent such notice, the transcript would become remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. See Dkt. 161. Linden does not explain any deficiency in this process, or why she objects to the docket entry she references.” The Court declines to take any action with respect to this objection. Third, Linden seeks sanctions against counsel for Morgan Stanley based largely on a November 11, 2022 email to her from its outside counsel. The email, which responds to an email from Linden, stated that the counsel’s law firm does not represent Linden or Morgan Stanley in connection with the issues she had raised and that the firm would not respond to further correspondence from her. See Dkt. 194. Morgan Stanley opposes her motion. It defends counsel’s email to Linden as accurate and appropriate, see Dkt, 199, and attaches a fuller set of emails between Linden and various counsel assigned to this matter, see Dkt. 200. Upon review, the Court does not find any impropriety or basis for sanctions. Counsel’s responses to Linden’s inquiries, including the email that she challenges, were appropriate. As counsel explained, Linden’s requests related to matters outside the scope of this litigation and/or were subject to direct rulings by this Court. The Court denies Linden’s motion for sanctions.

* To the extent Linden may mean to contend that the Court set a deadline for seeking a copy of the transcript of the hearing, the Court did not set any such deadline.

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall furnish a copy of this order to Linden forthwith and file proof of service on the docket within one week of this order. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions.? The case remains closed.

SO ORDERED. Pragf / Ly Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge

Dated: August 8, 2023 New York, New York

3 The Court attaches to this order various unsolicited letters sent by Linden after plaintiffs and defendant’s counsel filed their respective responses. Whether construed as replies or independent motions, these letters appear to reprise arguments raised herein by Linden. The letters do not make any of Linden’s claims meritorious. 4

Via Pro Se Emaif Portal oF Judge Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-PAE

Re: Letter Motion to Compel Proof of Morgan Stanley June 2020 Notice and March 2022 Notice, All Notice of Hearings and Notice of Orders, on all Melisssa A Linden filing before the court be placed on the public docket, attached brief in support of and request for oral argument to be granted. 12-02-2022 Dear Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, Scriber, melissa linden, respectfully submits this correspondence in order to expedite the truth, and asks the court to participate in rendering the truth to its public docket. Hense why, scribers, ask the court to grant this letter motion for proof thereof, described in the Specific Facts Relied Upon section, for the following reasons:

Memorandum of Law Specific Facts Relied Upon Plaintiffs’ Attorney asserted under penalty of perjury “The Court also considered Ms. Linden’s motion for joinder (ECF No. 123) and motion for stay (ECF No. 130) and denied both motions. See ECF No.

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

In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation (In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina
727 F.3d 230 (Second Circuit, 2013)