Wang v. AT&T et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Seal; denying 16 Motion to Compel. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to seal is DENIED and Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos. 15 and 16. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 11/26/2024) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
HAO ZHE WANG,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
AT&T, SNOWFLAKE INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

11/26/2024

24-cv-7206 (LJL)
ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:
This Order addresses two motions submitted by Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in
this matter.
On November 23, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a motion to seal, requesting permission to file
certain documents under seal as part of a contemplated petition for declaratory judgment. Dkt.
No. 15 at 5. The motion to seal is denied as procedurally improper. A motion to file a document
under seal in a separate declaratory judgment case may not be made in this case.
Plaintiff is advised that pro se litigants are permitted to file documents under seal or with
redactions by motion made in the relevant case. However, sealing procedures can be complex,
and attempting to file under seal comes with a risk that the documents will be filed publicly if the
procedures are not properly followed. A party seeking to file under seal in this District should
consult Section 6 of the SDNY Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions, available on the
Southern District of New York website under the heading “ECF Rules and Instructions,” as well
as the individual practices of any judge to whom the case is assigned. If Plaintiff wishes to file a
document under seal in this District, the parties are encouraged to confer regarding proper

procedures to ensure that the document is not inadvertently disclosed.
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a letter motion to compel Snowflake Inc. to
produce authorities cited in its papers pursuant to Local Rule 7.2. Dkt. No. 16. The motion is
denied. Local Rule 7.2 only reaches submissions to this Court. The relevant authorities are cited
in Defendant’s November 20 submission to the JPML, not any submission to this Court. Of
course, Defendants’ counsel is still permitted to provide Plaintiff with the relevant authorities,
and the Court sees no apparent reason counsel would not do so.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to seal is DENIED and Plaintiff’s motion to
compel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos. 15 and 16.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 26, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge

2