Kumaran et al v. Northland Energy Trading, LLC et al

Filing 215

ORDER granting 212 Letter Motion to Seal. The application to seal is granted as follows. Dkt. 210 may remain under seal, and any additional filings containing the same or similar information may be filed under seal. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/27/2025) (mml)

Download PDF
Cas. Ins. Co., No. 97–cv–9262, 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 submissions in order to prevent a party from being prejudiced by the application of counsel to withdraw.”); Harrison Conference Servs., Inc. v. Dolce Conference Servs., Inc., 806 F.Supp. 23 (E.D.N.Y.1992). In Harrison, the plaintiff's counsel, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae (“LeBoeuf”) sought to withdraw from representation due to a dispute regarding []legal bills, and submitted a number of documents in support of that motion for in camera review, to which the defendants objected. Judge Nickerson noted that the defendants “have been told that [the application for withdrawal] involves a fee dispute ... [but] they have not received any of the affidavits, memoranda, or substantive letters.” 806 F.Supp. at 25. The court rejected the defendants' argument that they had an “interest” in the outcome of the fee dispute between LeBoeuf and the plaintiffs, and noted that “[h]aving reviewed these submissions, the court cannot see how defendants would be prejudiced by them.” Id. The Harrison court concluded that “LeBoeuf and plaintiff properly submitted their papers in camera. Defendants are not entitled to a more complete description of this dispute, or a briefing schedule which will permit them to respond further.” Id. at 26. Team Obsolete Ltd. v. A.H.R.M.A. Ltd., 464 F. Supp. 2d 164, 165–66 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) For the reasons therein, and in accordance with the law supporting, Plaintiffs respectfully request that any further information regarding this fee dispute be filed in camera and under seal. Plaintiff Kumaran notes she has a February 11, 2025 deadline to file a motion to dismiss. Any disruption to this case prior to completing those deadlines or in fact midway through briefing on the motion to dismiss and discovery would also prejudice both Plaintiffs in being able to work on important issues in this case. The lawfirm has ECF Filing access to receive a free copy of these filings and a second copy was also sent via email. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Samantha S. Kumaran /s/ Samantha S. Kumaran samantha@timetricsrisk.com 212-431-5098 Cc/ Aaron Pierce Pierce and Kwok

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?