Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc. et al

Filing 307

ORDER. Assuming arguendo that Mr. Shaheen himself even had a right to seek disqualification, he waived it. See ECF No. 298, at 8-9. For the foregoing reasons, the Court reaffirms its denial of Mr. Shaheen's motion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/13/24) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
JAY ALIX,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
MCKINSEY & CO., INC. et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

18-CV-4141 (JMF)
ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
By Order entered yesterday, the Court denied the motion of Baraa Shaheen, proceeding
pro se, for sanctions and disqualification of Kobre & Kim LLP as counsel for Defendants in this
action. ECF No. 306. The Order noted that Mr. Shaheen had not filed any reply by the deadline
of February 9, 2024. See id. As it turns out, Mr. Shaheen had filed a reply by the deadline, but
— because it was a pro se filing — it was docketed by the Clerk’s Office only after the Court
signed the Order denying the motion. In any event, the reply does not change the result.
For one thing, the reply — at thirty-three pages — is demonstrably improper, as it vastly
exceeds what this Court’s rules permit, see Paragraph 4.C, Judge Furman’s Individual Rules and
Practices in Civil Cases (“Unless prior permission has been granted, memoranda of law in
support of and in opposition to motions are limited to twenty-five pages, and reply memoranda
are limited to ten pages.”), available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman, and what
Kobre & Kim LLP’s opposition (a mere nine pages) warranted. For another, the reply does not
undermine all of the arguments for denial made in Kobre & Kim LLP’s opposition. To provide
just one example: Mr. Shaheen concedes that he has known of the alleged conflict since at least
January 2023. See ECF No. 303, at 28-29. Yes, as Mr. Shaheen argues, there is no bright-line
rule with respect to how quickly a party must move for disqualification. See id. at 28. But the
full year that Mr. Shaheen waited falls squarely on the unreasonable side of the line, even
allowing for the fact that he is proceeding pro se. Accordingly, assuming arguendo that Mr.
Shaheen himself even had a right to seek disqualification, he waived it. See ECF No. 298, at 8-9.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court reaffirms its denial of Mr. Shaheen’s motion.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge