| Dominick Hotel Gentleman
Insulted Muslims As 246 Spring Street Sealing
Denied For Now
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 24 – 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[.]”
Now on July
24, Judge Liman to his credit
has denied the application -
but seems amenable to a
protective order: "ORDER
denying [19] Motion for
Protective Order ; denying
[20] Letter Motion for
Discovery. The motions for a
protective order (Dkt. Nos.
19, 20) are DENIED to the
extent they request an order
from the Court that the name
and contact information of the
hotel guest need not be
produced at all. Unless "good
cause" is shown, relevant
information is generally
discoverable. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26. The name and contact
information for this
individual is plainly relevant
to Plaintiff's employment
discrimination claims.
Production of that information
is proportional to the needs
of the case. See id.
Defendant's legitimate
interests in protecting the
confidentiality of its
customer from public
disclosure can be satisfied by
treating it as confidential
pursuant to a protective
order. The parties are
directed to the Court's website
for the form of such an order
and may submit it to the Court
for approval no later than
July 30, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to terminate Dkt.
Nos. 19 and 20. SO ORDERED.
(Signed by Judge Lewis J.
Liman on 7/24/2020)." Watch
this site.
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
|
,
