United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 7, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-04355·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------ - -- -- -- --- - 5 XX UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, : ORDER Plaintiff, : 19 Civ. 4355 (LGS) (GWG) -V.- : COLLECTOR’S COFFEE INC., et al., : Defendants. : ------------------------ - -- -- -- --- - 5 XX GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE With respect to Docket # 429, the pre-motion conference requirement is waived. Any motion shall comply with paragraphs 2.B through 2.F of the Court’s Individual Practices. As to the sealing issue, Debevoise & Plimpton is directed to make the application to seal required by paragraph 2.E of the Court’s Individual Practices on or before July 15, 2020 (assuming it is able to meet the rigorous standard set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006)). In the meantime, the parties should comply with the instructions in paragraph 2.E. As explained on the Court’s webpage, https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein, the parties should call Chambers to determine how to transmit to the Court the unredacted version of any redacted materials that are filed by that party (including Docket # 429). Counsel for Collector’s Coffee Inc. is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Debevoise & Plimpton forthwith.

So Ordered. Dated: July 7, 2020 New York, New York

Soe □ Grwsle— United States Magistrate Judge

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

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. (United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)