Carrington v. Graden et al

Filing 172

ORDER: On January 6, 2020, the Court received an ex parte communication, sent as an e-mail to the Court's inbox, from Plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff wrote in part to request an extension to the deadline the Court had set for Plaintiff 9;s response to Defendants' fee applications. (Dkt. #164). However, Plaintiff also made several significant accusations about Defendants in his e-mail, and then requested that the e-mail be considered as privileged by the Court. Given the pro cedural history of this case and the nature of the statements made against Defendants, the Court does not believe that it would be appropriate to consider Plaintiff's request on an ex parte basis. The Court would, however, allow Plaintiff to r e-file his request for an extension, along with whatever attachments he deems may be relevant and appropriate, under seal. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's request for an extension so that he may consider whether to re-file the request under seal. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/7/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROVIER CARRINGTON,
Plaintiff,
-v.BRIAN GRADEN; BRIAN GRADEN
MEDIA, LLC; VIACOMCBS INC.;
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.;
PARAMOUNT PICTURES
CORPORATION; BRAD GREY; BRAD
GREY ESTATE; and BRAD ALAN GREY
TRUST,

18 Civ. 4609 (KPF)
ORDER

Defendants.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
On January 6, 2020, the Court received an ex parte communication, sent
as an e-mail to the Court’s inbox, from Plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff wrote in
part to request an extension to the deadline the Court had set for Plaintiff’s
response to Defendants’ fee applications. (Dkt. #164). However, Plaintiff also
made several significant accusations about Defendants in his e-mail, and then
requested that the e-mail be considered as privileged by the Court. Given the
procedural history of this case and the nature of the statements made against
Defendants, the Court does not believe that it would be appropriate to consider
Plaintiff’s request on an ex parte basis. The Court would, however, allow
Plaintiff to re-file his request for an extension, along with whatever attachments
he deems may be relevant and appropriate, under seal. Therefore, the Court
DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for an extension so that he may
consider whether to re-file the request under seal.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2020
New York, New York
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

A copy of this Order was mailed by Chambers to:
Rovier Carrington
5901 Encina Road
Suite C-2
Goleta, CA 93117

2