Capitol Records, LLC v. Redigi Inc.

Filing 229

LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion to withdraw as counsel addressed to Judge Richard J. Sullivan from Mark S. Raskin dated June 22, 2016. Document filed by John Ossenmacher, Redigi Inc., Larry Rudolph.(Raskin, Mark)

Two Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016

Direct Tel:
Direct Fax:
E-mail:

June 24, 2016

212-612-3279
212-612-3297
[e-mail]

BY CM/ECF AND HAND DELIVERY
Hon. Richard J. Sullivan
Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:

Capitol Records LLC v. ReDigi Inc., et al. (12 Civ. 00095) (RJS)

Hon. Judge Sullivan,
Mishcon de Reya New York LLP is currently counsel of record for ReDigi Inc.
(“ReDigi”), John Ossenmacher, and Larry Rudolph (“Defendants”) in the above-referenced
action. We request a pre-motion conference pursuant to 2.A of Your Honor’s Individual
Practices in anticipation of our motion to withdraw as Defendants’ counsel in this action (or
alternatively for leave to file our motion to withdraw without a pre-motion conference). We also
request permission to file the motion under seal for in camera review and consideration.
We submit that our Firm has satisfactory reasons for withdrawal under Local Civil Rule
1.4. The general basis for the motion is that withdrawal is appropriate based on NY Rules of
Prof. Con. Rule 1.16(b)(3) (without cause) and 1.16(c)(1), (5) and (10). While we would
typically provide a detailed basis for our motion in this letter, including citations to authority and
a brief overview, we request that the Court allow us to file our motion to withdraw, and the
accompanying declaration and memorandum of law, under seal for in camera review and
consideration, with copies served on Defendants but not any other parties, in order to preserve
the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship. See e.g. Thekkek v. LaserSculpt, Inc., No.
11 Civ. 4426(HB)(JLC), 2012 WL 225924, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2012) (granting motion to
withdraw upon in camera review, explaining: “documents in support of motions to withdraw as
counsel are routinely filed under seal where necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the
attorney-client relationship between a party and its counsel, and ... this method is viewed
favorably by the courts”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Team Obsolete Ltd. v. A.HR.MA.
Ltd., 464 F.Supp.2d 164, 165-66 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)); Weinberger v. Provident Life & Cas. Ins.
Co., No. 97 Civ. 9262(JGK), 1998 WL 898309, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1998) (“it is
appropriate for a Court considering a counsel's motion to withdraw to consider in camera

Switchboard: [phone]
Main Fax: [phone]

New York: Mishcon de Reya New York LLP
London:
Mishcon de Reya LLP

A list of partners is available for
inspection at the above address

submissions in order to prevent a party from being prejudiced by the application of counsel to
withdraw”).
In the event that the Court does not grant our request to file our motion to withdraw as
counsel without a pre-motion conference, we would respectfully request that the Court hold an
expedited in camera pre-motion conference.
Thank you for Your Honor’s time and consideration in this matter. We are available at
the Court’s convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark S. Raskin
Mark S. Raskin

cc:

All Counsel (by email)

2