Capitol Records, LLC v. Redigi Inc.
LETTER addressed to Judge Richard J. Sullivan from SARAH M. MATZ dated June 22, 2016 re: Letter Requesting Leave to File Motion to Withdraw (LCR 1.4) Under Seal and/or In Camera Pre-Motion Conference. Document filed by Redigi Inc..(Matz, Sarah)
Sarah M. Matz
Dir: (646) 650-2213
June 22, 2016
VIA ECF AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Hon. Richard J. Sullivan
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007-1312
Capitol Records LLC v. ReDigi Inc., et al. (12 Civ. 00095) (RJS)
Hon. Judge Sullivan:
As you are aware, my firm Adelman Matz P.C., is currently counsel of record for
Defendant ReDigi Inc. (“ReDigi”) in the above-referenced action. Pursuant to 2.A of Your
Honor’s Individual Practices, we are writing to respectfully request a pre-motion conference in
anticipation of filing a motion to withdraw as ReDigi’s counsel in this action, or for leave to file
our motion to withdraw as counsel without a pre-motion conference. Additionally we are
respectfully requesting that we be allowed to file the motion under seal for in camera review and
We respectfully 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) and (5). Although generally
we would set forth the basis for the anticipated motion in more detail in this letter, including
citations to authority and a brief overview, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the attorneyclient relationship, we are respectfully requesting that the Court allow our motion to withdraw,
and the accompanying declaration and memorandum of law, to be filed under seal for in camera
review and consideration, with copies served on ReDigi but not any other parties. 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)
Adelman Matz P.C.
Phone: (646) 650-2207 • Fax: (646) 650-2108
1173A Second Avenue, Suite 153
New York, New York 10065
780 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10017
June 22, 2016
Page 2 of 2
(“it is appropriate for a Court considering a counsel's motion to withdraw to consider in camera
submissions in order to prevent a party from being prejudiced by the application of counsel to
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.
We greatly appreciate Your Honor’s time and consideration in this matter, and should the
Court need any further information we are available at the Court’s convenience.
ADELMAN MATZ P.C.
Sarah M. Matz, Esq.
Via ECF and Simultaneous E-Mail
Counsel of Record
Via Simultaneous E-mail
ReDigi Inc. (John Ossenmacher john@ReDigi.com; Larry Rudolph email@example.com)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?