Case Activity (1709)

1. Response | Filed: June 22, 2026 | Entered: June 25, 2026 Bhagat v. Shah

   P.I.: Other | New York Southern

   Response in Opposition to Motion

   PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF 690) re: 690 MOTION for Reconsideration. Document filed by Viral Bhagat. (ap)

2. Order | Filed: June 25, 2026 Bhagat v. Shah

   P.I.: Other | New York Southern

   Order

   ORDER re: 689 Letter, filed by Viral Bhagat. This application falls within the scope of my reference. For the reasons set forth below, the application is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.Plaintiff asserts that he has not initiated any anonym ous settlement communications with Defendant; that the email addresses from which he received emails appear to be associated with Defendant, a concern that he says is non-speculative based on alleged prior behavior by Defendant; and that he is concer ned that the emails "are intended to create confusion in the record... and manufacture collateral disputes" and to pressure Dordi, a key witness, not to cooperate with Plaintiff at trial. Whether the emails in question come from Defendant o r not, their substance is irrelevant to the merits of the case. As a result, I do not believe there is any risk that these emails will confuse the jury, because I find it extremely unlikely that the jury will ever see them. I therefore see no basis t o require the parties to preserve the communications in question. While I would encourage the parties for any number of practical reasons to communicate with each other using the email addresses they provided to the Court, I am unaware of any rule or precedent requiring them to do so. Finally, while the parties should be well aware that they must not take steps calculated to intimidate or otherwise interfere with witnesses, I will reiterate that doing so is not permitted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky on 6/25/2026) (sgz)

3. 1707 additional result(s)