In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, August 1 – 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[.]”

 On July 24, Judge Liman to his credit has denied the application - but seemed amenable to a protective order. And now, Judge Liman has issued a protective order - but again to this credit with this provision, applicable to other proceedings in the SDNY including a higher profile "whistleblower" proceeding in which documents submitted are threatened with being withdrawn as if they were never submitted, after having an impact: "13.All persons seeking to file redacted documents or documents under seal with the Court shall follow Rule 2(F) of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases. No person may file with Court redacted documents or documents under seal without first seeking leave to file such papers. All persons producing Confidential Discovery Material are deemed to be on notice that the Second Circuit puts limitations on the documents or information that may be filed in redacted form or under seal and that the Court retains discretion not to afford confidential treatment to any Confidential Discovery Material submitted to the Court or presented in connection with any motion, application or proceeding that may result in an order and/or decision by the Court unless it is able to make the specific findings required by law in order to retain the confidential nature of such material. Notwithstanding its designation, there is no presumption that Confidential Discovery Material will be filed with the Court under seal. The Parties will use their best efforts to minimize such sealing."  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