Law et al v. Estee Lauder Inc. et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying #29 Motion to Dismiss.For reasons the Court will explain orally at an initial pretrial conference to be held by telephone on July 8, 2021 at 2:15 p.m., Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. ECF No. 29. Defendants shall file an answer to the Amended Complaint no later than June 28, 2021, and the parties shall follow the pre-conference procedures specified in the Court's Order of June 23, 2020, including by submitting a joint letter addressing certain topics and a proposed case management plan no later than the Thursday prior to the conference. See ECF No. 6.The parties should join the July 8th conference by calling the Court's dedicated conference line at [phone] and using access code 542-1540, followed by the pound (#) key. (Members of the public and press may also attend using the same dial-in information; they will not be allowed to speak during the conference.) As stated in Rule 2(C)(ii) of the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, no later than 24 hours before the conference, the parties shall send a joint email to the Court with a list of counsel who may speak during the teleconference and the telephone numbers from which counsel expect to join the call. More broadly, counsel should review and comply with the rules and guidance regarding teleconferences set forth in the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman. Further, the parties sought leave to redact narrow references to recordkeeping fees from their memoranda of law, ECF Nos. 35, 44, 49, and the Court temporarily granted their applications, ECF Nos. 36, 46, 53. Because the redacted information played little to no role in the Court's decision and it is a third party's confidential business information, the parties' applications are granted permanently. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 29. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/7/2021) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
MICHELLE BILELLO et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
ESTEE LAUDER, INC. et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

20-CV-4770 (JMF)
ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
For reasons the Court will explain orally at an initial pretrial conference to be held by
telephone on July 8, 2021 at 2:15 p.m., Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. ECF No.
29. Defendants shall file an answer to the Amended Complaint no later than June 28, 2021, and
the parties shall follow the pre-conference procedures specified in the Court’s Order of June 23,
2020, including by submitting a joint letter addressing certain topics and a proposed case
management plan no later than the Thursday prior to the conference. See ECF No. 6.
The parties should join the July 8th conference by calling the Court’s dedicated
conference line at [phone] and using access code 542-1540, followed by the pound (#)
key. (Members of the public and press may also attend using the same dial-in information; they
will not be allowed to speak during the conference.) As stated in Rule 2(C)(ii) of the Court’s
Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, no later than 24 hours
before the conference, the parties shall send a joint email to the Court with a list of counsel who
may speak during the teleconference and the telephone numbers from which counsel expect to
join the call. More broadly, counsel should review and comply with the rules and guidance

regarding teleconferences set forth in the Court’s Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in
Light of COVID-19, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman.
Further, the parties sought leave to redact narrow references to recordkeeping fees from
their memoranda of law, ECF Nos. 35, 44, 49, and the Court temporarily granted their
applications, ECF Nos. 36, 46, 53. Because the redacted information played little to no role in
the Court’s decision and it is a third party’s confidential business information, the parties’
applications are granted permanently. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 29.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2021
New York, New York

__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

2