Gotlin et al v. Lederman et al

Filing 291

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 289 Letter filed by Giuseppe Bono. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 10/11/2012. (Williams, Jennifer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
GARY D. GOTLIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
04-CV-3736 (ILG)

GILBERT S. LEDERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
In a letter filed on October 9, 2012, attorney Bruce Behrins, on behalf of plaintiffs,
assails this Court’s Calendar Order of October 5, 2012 as “misguided” and inquires why the
Court “felt constrained to speak with [counsel’s] son, Jonathan” Behrins, in a telephone
conference with the parties last Friday. See Letter from Bruce G. Behrins (Oct. 9, 2012) (“Pl.
10/9/11 Letter”) at 1, 2, Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry (“DE”) #289. The Court
addresses both issues herein.
Mr. Behrins first complains that during the October 5th telephone conference, the Court
admonished plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm, and Bruce Behrins in particular, for publicly filing, via
ECF, a letter to the Court dated October 3, 2012, in which he gratuitously disclosed the
settlement sum that was part of an agreement in principle that included a promise of
confidentiality. Mr. Behrins’ insistence that there “still is no confidentiality in place,” see
10/9/11 Letter at 1, is itself misguided in two respects. First, while it is unfortunately true that
the parties have not yet finalized the language of the non-disclosure provision, Mr. Behrins
ignores the fact that at the July 18, 2012 proceeding before this Court, the parties agreed in
principle, on the record, to a resolution of the case, and agreed that the settlement terms would

not be disclosed;1 indeed, it was painfully obvious to everyone present at that proceeding that
non-disclosure was, for the defendants, a material term of the settlement of this case. Second,
and even more disturbing, rather than apologize for an inadvertent oversight on his part, Mr.
Behrins, in his October 9th submission, makes clear that he willfully publicly disclosed the
settlement sum, on the pretext that “there are not yet any confidentiality stipulations in place
. . . .” Pl. 10/9/12 Letter at 2.
As for Mr. Behrins’ complaint that the October 5th telephone conference proceeded in
his absence, and his assertion that he does not “feel bound by [his] son’s” representations
therein, Mr. Behrins overlooks the fact that Jonathan Behrins is in fact plaintiffs’ counsel of
record -- Bruce Behrins is not. Therefore, Jonathan Behrins needed no authorization from his
father to make representations binding upon plaintiffs.
Furthermore, Bruce Behrins’ failure to participate in the telephone proceeding is a
problem of his own making. When the Court’s staff attempted to schedule a telephone
conference on the morning of October 5, 2012, Jonathan Behrins advised that his father would
be available after 1:00 p.m. and that, in the interim, the younger Mr. Behrins would bring
himself “up to speed” on the issues surrounding the settlement. To accommodate Bruce
Behrins, a telephone conference was scheduled for 1:30 p.m. that afternoon, and all counsel
were so notified. Minutes before the scheduled proceeding commenced, Jonathan Behrins
contacted chambers and advised the Court’s law clerk that his father would not be available
until 2:15 p.m. Because the Court’s afternoon in-court calendar was to commence at 2:00

1

In fact, at the conclusion of the protracted proceeding, the Court remarked that it would
advise Judge Glasser that an enforceable agreement had been placed on the record.
-2-

p.m., the Court was unable to further adjourn the 1:30 p.m. telephone conference, which went
forward with plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Jonathan Behrins, representing his clients during
that proceeding. The only unanswered question, which the elder Mr. Behrins avoids
addressing, is why he failed to make himself available for the conference at the appointed time.
The Court has now scheduled an in-court proceeding for October 15, 2012 at 10:00
a.m., at which it will attempt to salvage the parties’ imperilled settlement agreement.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
October 11, 2012

Roanne L. Mann

/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-