Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Levine Lee x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Other Fraud | New York Southern
Order
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion to Seal; granting 52 Motion for Leave to File Document. Defendant's requests is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. The proposed redactions to ECF No. 46 (at ECF No. 45) are sufficiently narrowly tailored. The request to seal ECF No. 46 is therefore GRANTED. However, Defendant seeks to seal in its entirety an entire document, ECF No. 46-1. Defendant has not demonstrated that wholesale sealing of this document is appropriate as opposed to more narrowly tailored redactions. The request to seal ECF No. 46-1 is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's request is GRANTED. the proposed redactions to ECF No. 53-5 (at ECF No. 54-5) are narrowly tailored . With respect to ECF Nos. 53-2, 53-3, and 53-4, Plaintiff seeks sealing on these documents only at the request of Defendant, pending a request for pe1manent sealing from Defendant. That request is GRANTED. ECF Nos. 46 and 53-5 shall remain under sea l. ECF Nos. 46-1, 53-2, 53-3, and 53-4 shall remain temporarily under seal for twenty-one (21) days. During that period, Defendant may file a motion seeking sealing or more narrowly tailored redactions to these documents, supported by citation to aut hority granting the redaction of similar information. If any such motion is filed, the Court will maintain any documents subject to such motion under temporarily seal pending resolution of the motion. If no such motion with respect to some or all of these documents is filed in that period, the Court will direct that any documents and material for which no motion is filed shall be unsealed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF Nos. 45 and 52. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 10/1/2026) (jca)
Civil Rights: Other | New York Southern
ORDER denying 92 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 96 Letter Motion for Discovery. Plaintiff Gideon Rapaport, proceeding pro se, brings a motion to alter the Court's dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rul es of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 92. In support of his motion, Rapaport filed a video for the Court's consideration and a proposed second amended complaint. See ECF No. 92-1. Rapaport's motion is HEREBY DENIED, as further set forth herein. As to Rapaport's letter-motion to take a preservation deposition of Epstein, that request is also DENIED. Rule 27(b) permits "a party to depose witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in that court" where "an appeal has been taken or may still be taken." Success on a motion under Rule 27(b) requires "a specific need to preserve the testimony," and the Court's satisfaction that "a loss of the testimony would result in a failure of justice." Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 587, 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citations omitted). "Courts have interpreted this [language] to mean that petitioners 'make a particulariz ed showing that the testimony needs to be taken in advance of'" a decision on the appeal. See In re Petition of Allegretti, 229 F.R.D. 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Application of Checkosky, 142 F.R.D. 4, 7 (D.D.C. 1992)). Here, Rapapo rt fails to make a sufficient showing that Epstein's age and health status warrant a deposition at this time. His briefing relies on actuarial life expectancy estimates and speculation about Epsteins health based on information from more than four years prior. See ECF No. 100 at 2. These factors alone do not suffice. See, e.g., Marshall v. Madoff, No. 15-MC-56 (JGK), 2015 WL 2183939, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2015) (considering that "the petitioners have presented little actual evi dence demonstrating [the would-be deponent's] poor health to support the purported urgency of preserving his testimony"). Moreover, Plaintiff's appeal is unlikely to succeed in the face of multiple bases for the dismissal of his claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 92 and 96. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 10/1/2026) (vfr)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.