Case law

Helm v. Indyke

District Court, S.D. New York · May 22, 2020

In addition, a producing person may use its own document (e.g., as a deposition exhibit) containing material that is subject to a claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for the purpose of establishing the basis … claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for any purpose other than establishing the basis of such claim. 21.

Doe 1000 v. Indyke

District Court, S.D. New York · May 22, 2020

In addition, a producing person may use its own document (e.g., as a deposition exhibit) containing material that is subject to a claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for the purpose of establishing the basis … claim of privilege or immunity from disclosure for any purpose other than establishing the basis of such claim. 21.

Voltstar Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · May 30, 2025

Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. … A Challenging Party may proceed to the next stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first or establishes that the Designating Party is unwilling to do so in a timely manner

DISTRICT 65, UAW v. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

696 F. Supp. 29 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 1988

(ii) The rate used by the insurer in the qualifying bid under which the plan administrator will purchase annuities not being paid as a lump sum. … Defendants do not dispute this, but point to 29 C.F.R. § 2619.26 , which clearly provides that the use of certain interest rates not available to small investors over long periods is “normally” reasonable.

Rufino v. Apfel

2 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1998

In order to qualify for SSI disability benefits, a claimant must demonstrate that she is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can … In any event, given the other evidence which clearly established that Rufino was not disabled, it is highly unlikely that Dr.

Hallingby Ex Rel. Estate of Hallingby v. Hallingby

541 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2008

. § 1002 , ERISA applies broadly to “any plan, fund or program ... established or maintained by an employer” that “provides retirement income to employees.” … According to Harrison, the Annuities clearly fall within the scope of this definition, as they were established by Paul Hallingby’s employer, Merrill Lynch, in order to provide employee retirement income.

Craven v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 2020

immunity, see Defs.’ … Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

In Re Arbitration Between Interdigital Communications Corp.

528 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 4, 2007

With regard to the panel’s knowledge of the legal principle at issue, “[a] showing that the average person qualified to be an arbitrator would know the particular rule is insufficient” to establish such knowledge. … However, Samsung has failed to establish that the doctrine of collateral estoppel was “clearly applicable” to the issue of whether Samsung should be required to pay interest on unpaid royalties. See D.H.

Massone v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2020

It also clearly streamlines challenges of agency determinations into a single review Plaintiff has failed to state a viable underlying claim. … App’x 67 (2d Cir. 2016). 4 Because the Court has dismissed the Amended Complaint for failure to present a live case or controversy, it does not address Defendants’ sovereign immunity argument. (See Defs.’

Martinez-Done v. McConnell

56 F. Supp. 3d 535 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 8, 2014

In everyday English, “when” clearly “connote[s] immediacy.” 66 The best that can be said for the duty-triggering construction is that the word “when” is ambiguous. *546 In Hosh v. … See id. at 523 , 123 S.Ct. 1708 ("It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”) (citing Reno v.

Baker v. Peters

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 8, 2023

“‘[T]he APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity applies to any suit whether under the APA or not’ because Section 702 ‘waives sovereign immunity for [any] action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money … I have established a PACER account; 3.

Reynolds v. Giuliani

118 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 21, 2000

Plaintiffs did far more than establish that the audit results are merely imprecise. … An unconsenting State is thus immune from suits in federal court brought by its own citizens, see Edelman v.

Marks v. National Communications Ass'n, Inc.

72 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 26, 1999

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination by showing (1) that the plaintiff is a member of a protected class, (2) that the plaintiff applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer … Marks’s allegation that she was discharged against her will is clearly belied by this transcript.

Sirignano v. Chicago Insurance

192 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2002

That does not qualify as undue delay. There is also no basis upon which to find that CIC waived its right to deny coverage, as plaintiff suggests. … “Negligence or oversight is not enough to establish waiver,” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.

Sheridan v. Furbur

21 F. Cas. 1266 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 4, 1834

But, with regard to a ship-master, the persons over whom his authority is to be exerted are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in all respects other than in their qualified subjection to the discipline … I should be disposed to visit such intemperate conduct with a punishment in damages corresponding to the wantonness of the wrong, were it not that the declarations of the libellant, since the voyage ended, very clearly import

Steven Reyes Juarez v. NYCL Acquisition LLC, New York Cruise Lines, Inc., and New York Water Taxi, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 2024

Additionally, “work-product immunity is a qualified protection,” and “Rule 26(b)(3) authorizes disclosure – at least of materials that do not include the ‘mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal … Therefore, the witness statements obtained by counsel for Defendants are clearly protected by the work-product privilege. B. Defendants Did Not Flagrantly Violate Fed. R. Civ.

Oluyomi v. Napolitano

811 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 2011

In his deposition, Oluyomi stated that all of these individuals were either “qualified” or “generally” qualified for the positions for which they were selected. See Def. 56. 1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 66; Pl. … He did not qualify for a GS-14 certificate. See Def. 56. 1 Stat. 9171 ¶ 75; *935 Pl. Opp. at 13 ¶ 75; Clark Decl. ¶ 10.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Ashley Reed Trading, Inc.

43 F. Supp. 3d 271 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 2014

“[T]his use qualifies as advertising” {id.), and a “consumer product whose design incorporates its maker’s trademark ... is an advertisement for itself.” {Id. at 9.) Defendants miss the mark. … (i) and (ii), above), Defendant Ressler cannot establish that USF & G acted in bad faith by refusing to settle that dispute. Zurich Ins. Co. v.

Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

79 A.L.R. Fed. 763 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 10, 1984

Under Rule 26(b)(3), three conditions must be satisfied in order to establish work product protection. … The work product immunity generally “extends only to those documents prepared in anticipation of litigation,” Garfinkle v.

Barrett v. Secretary of the Department of Health, Education & Welfare

581 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 28, 1984

Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir.1979), “it has been established both in this Circuit and elsewhere, that subjective pain may serve as the basis for establishing disability, even if such pain is unaccompanied by positive … Plaintiff’s testimony, if believed, clearly establishes a debilitating back injury which prevents him from pursuing any regular gainful activity.