Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Project Renewal x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Other | New York Southern
Order
OPINION & ORDER. re: 133 MOTION for Extension of Time. filed by Charles H.M.S. Sexton, I, 103 FIRST MOTION to Compel Re-service. filed by Charles H.M.S. Sexton, I, 94 SECOND MOTION to Compel . filed by Charles H.M.S. Sexton, I. In sum, Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 94) is GRANTED as to Westhab, regarding identifying information of Henderson, and DENIED as to VOA and Help USA. Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 103) is DE NIED in its entirety, except that the Court notes that the prior attempt at service on Defendant David was ineffective. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of time to serve theIndividual Defendants (Dkt. No. 133) is GRANTED as to Henderson, and DEN IED as to David and McBride. The Court extends Plaintiffs time to serve Henderson by 60 days from entry of this Opinion & Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions pending at Docket Numbers 94, 103, and 133. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary Stein on 9/30/2026) (ta)
Memo Endorsement
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 95 FIRST MOTION for Protective Order . filed by Charles H.M.S. Sexton, I. Application denied. The Court may issue a protective order "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Sexton asks the Court to order that all "filings, notices, communications, and correspondence" from Defendants and their counsel occur exclusively through CM/ECF, and prohibit any non-CM/ECF communications between Plaintiff and Defendants or their counsel unless authorized by Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 95 at 3). Plaintiff has not established that "good cause... exists" for the sweeping relief requested. Duling v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 266 F.R.D. 66, 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Without more, merely contacting Plaintiff outside the CM/ECF system, or mailing him documents, is insufficient to show that Plaintiff suffered annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression warranting a protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary Stein on 9/30/2026) (ta)
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
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 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.