| Dominick Hotel Gentleman
Insulted Muslims Now 246 Spring Street Hotel
Wants Name Sealed
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 19 – In February 2020 a
mysterious complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New
York.
Muhammad Miah who
had worked as a doorman at the
Domenick Hotel complained that
"at the end of September 2019,
a man, let's call him 'The
Gentleman' - perhaps a guest -
idled his car directly in
front of the
hotel."
Soon, according to the
complaint, this "Gentleman"
uttered "Muslim something" to
offend Miah.
On July 10
SDNY Judge Lewis J. Liman held
a proceeding. Inner City Press
covered it.
Judge
Liman inquired into "the
Gentleman," his relationship
to the hotel and whether he
should be publicly named.
He directed that
the hotel file a motion for a
protective order to protect it
from disclosing the name of
the individual identified as
'The Gentleman' in plaintiff's
complaint."
And now, it
has been filed, including:
"Our firm represents Defendant
246 Spring Street (NY), LLC,
d/b/a The Dominick Hotel,
erroneously pleaded as The
Dominick Hotel, (hereinafter
“Defendant”), in the
above-referenced matter. As
Your Honor may recall, during
the July 10, 2020 initial
conference counsel for
Plaintiff Muhammad Miah
(“Plaintiff”) stated his
intention to seek to implead
an individual as a party in
this matter, the identity of
whom is in Defendant’s
possession... Rule 26 provides
that a court may enter a
protective order to protect a
party from “annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression or
undue burden or expense[.]”
See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1).... the guest’s name
and contact information were
provided to Defendant under
circumstances in which the
guest could have reasonably
expected that it would be kept
private. Further, the
prospective harm that could be
caused by disclosure of such
information outweighs
Plaintiff’s alleged need for
same. Defendant’s business
could be significantly
undermined if it is compelled
to provide the guest’s
identity. As this Court
recognized in the Airbnb
decision, customer relations
are crucial to a hotel’s
success. It is understood when
a guest checks into a hotel
that the hotel will utilize
discretion and keep the
guest’s private data
confidential. Moreover,
Defendant encourages hotel
guests to provide feedback
regarding their stay. If
Defendant is required to
divulge the guest’s private
information, it would
undermine this important
business goal. Guests would
never submit honest customer
service reviews for fear of
being dragged into litigation
between an employer and
employee. Additionally, if
required to divulge the
personal information,
Defendant could open itself to
costly litigation by the
guest."
The case is Miah
v. The Dominick Hotel,
20-cv-1172 (Liman)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
