In an opinion filed on Friday, Judge Caproni denied the National Football League’s renewed attempt to compel arbitration in an employment discrimination action brought by a putative class of current and former NFL coaches (the “Coaches”). Initially filed in 2022, the lawsuit alleged systemic racial discrimination in the hiring, retention and termination of NFL coaches and executives.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the NFL moved to compel arbitration, which was granted as to certain claims and denied as to others. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to compel arbitration claims against the Giants, Broncos and Texans, while declining to rule on jurisdictional grounds on the claims that had been compelled to arbitration. The Second Circuit explained that “the NFL failed to provide a neutral forum that could even be called an ‘arbitration’ and that [plaintiff] could not effectively vindicate his statutory rights in the forum that the NFL provided, given the designation of the NFL Commissioner as the default arbitrator and the lack of express arbitral procedures.”

In light of the Second Circuit’s ruling, the Coaches moved for reconsideration of the district court’s earlier order compelling arbitration of the remaining claims. “[T]o conform to controlling law,” Judge Caproni granted the Coaches’ motion and denied the NFL’s motion to compel arbitration in full. 

Continue Reading Judge Caproni Denies NFL’s Motion To Compel Arbitration Against Coaches on Reconsideration

On Thursday, Judge McMahon granted a motion by a putative class of federal grant recipients to compel the production of certain documents withheld by defendants National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Department of Government Efficiencies (DOGE) as privileged. The underlying discovery pertains to a class action challenging the mass termination of approximately 1,400 NEH grants last year.

Continue Reading Judge McMahon: DOGE Lacks Statutory Authority to Establish Attorney-Client Privilege with Other Agencies

In an opinion filed January 23, Judge Daniels denied a motion (covered here) in which DoorDash and Uber sought to preliminarily enjoin, as improperly “compelled speech,” a new New York City law requiring that online food ordering services provide an option to tip before the order is placed and to include an option for a tip of at least 10%.

DoorDash and Uber used to customarily include a tip option before the order was placed, but, in December 2023, the City passed a “Minimum Pay Law” for delivery workers, and so they moved the tip prompt to a screen that would appear after checkout—and which resulted in a significant decline in tips. The new law was passed in response to the tip decline.

Judge Daniels concluded that the DoorDash and Uber were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the speech at issue was commercial speech—speech that is “linked inextricably” to a commercial transaction—and so subject to less First Amendment protection. Judge Daniels rejected the plaintiffs’ effort to characterize the law as forcing them to “convey the City’s preferred message regarding tipping,” and found that the speech at issue merely reflected their “economic interests” in a commercial transaction:

Continue Reading Judge Daniels Refuses To Preliminarily Enjoin City Law Requiring Online Food Orders To Include An Upfront Tipping Option

On Tuesday, Judge Liman ordered the sealing of certain documents in Blake Lively’s ongoing lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation claims against Justin Baldoni and his production company, in connection with the filming of It Ends With Us. The parties had filed various motions to seal and unseal in connection with Lively’s motion for spoilation sanctions and defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Continue Reading Judge Liman: Relevance of Documents to Summary Judgment “Not a Threshold Issue” for Sealing Determinations

Earlier this month, DoorDash and Uber Eats filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin New York City’s new law requiring that online food ordering services provide an option to tip before the order is placed and to include an option for a tip of at least 10%.  According to the plaintiffs, the law compels speech that they do not wish to communicate, in violation of the First Amendment:

Continue Reading DoorDash and Uber Eats Seeks To Enjoin City Law Requiring Upfront Tipping Option

In an opinion Monday, Judge Abrams granted, in part, a motion by one insurance brokerage, Marsh & McLennan (referred to as MMA), to preliminarily enjoin a rival, Alliant, and certain employees that had left to join Alliant, from poaching clients, in violation of certain contractual non-solicitation obligations.

Judge Abrams enjoined further poaching but would not go so far as to enjoin Alliant from servicing clients that had already left because there was no “indication that MMA’s lost clients would return” if an injunction issued and because, even if MMA were to ultimately prove the client defections resulted from contractual breaches or tortious behavior, the appropriate remedy would be damages (even potentially punitive damages), not a preliminary injunction:

Continue Reading In Corporate Raiding Case, Judge Abrams Enjoins Poaching Clients But Not Servicing Ones That Have Already Left

In an Order last week, Judge McMahon asked the lawyers in a copyright infringement case over the young adult book series Crave (see the operative complaint here) how they planned to conduct a forthcoming jury trial, given the massive volume of evidence—both the book series itself and, separately, the plaintiff’s unpublished manuscripts from which the series was allegedly stolen.

The case was filed by family law attorney and aspiring novelist Lynn Freeman who for years sought to publish her book Blue Moon Rising. After having failed to find a publisher, she came across a book, Crave by Tracy Wolff, with striking similarities. Wolff, it turned out, had the same literary agent as Freeman. Freeman would later sue for copyright infringement. (For more case background, see the New Yorker’s feature on the case).

Judge Stanton denied summary judgment, agreeing with Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation that there were fact issues about whether Wolff had access to Freeman’s manuscripts (via their common agent) and whether Wolff “copied parts, large or small.”

The case was assigned to Judge McMahon, who initially suggested that the parties agree to a bench trial because, among other things, it would make it easier to manage the volume of evidence: “I promise I will read everything that either side wants to submit to a trier of fact — all the books, all the notes and all the drafts.”

The parties’ decision to proceed with a jury trial is what gave rise to last week’s Order, and Judge McMahon’s query on how to present the evidence. As Judge McMahon explained, it would not suffice for the manuscripts by Freeman or the Crave series itself to be admitted into evidence merely by way of summaries:

Continue Reading In Case Over Allegedly Infringing Teen Romance Book Series, Judge McMahon Asks Counsel: How To Efficiently Try A Case With 10,000-Plus Pages Of Allegedly Infringing Material?

In an MDL brought by private plaintiffs challenging Google’s allegedly monopolistic digital advertising practices, Judge Castel ruled on Monday that Google was precluded from relitigating issues decided in an April bench trial ruling in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Virginia case involved similar monopolization allegations, but was brought by DOJ and state attorneys general.

Judge Castel found that the elements for issue preclusion were met — that is, that the Virginia case involved the same issues, that Google had a fair chance to litigate the issues, and that they were necessary to a final judgment — but noted that issue preclusion, as an equitable doctrine, required him to also consider the overall fairness of binding a litigant to adverse findings from another case.

On that point, Judge Castel found “no unfairness to Google” in applying issue preclusion, especially given the “massively high stakes” of the Virginia case:

Continue Reading Judge Castel: Google Barred From Relitigating Issues Decided In DOJ Digital Ad Monopoly Case

On Wednesday, Reddit Inc. sued Perplexity AI and three “data scrapers,” alleging the companies are circumventing its technological safeguards to unlawfully acquire Reddit’s copyrighted data to “feed” Perplexity’s artificial intelligence model.

Reddit is one of the largest online discussion platforms in the world and “comprises nearly two decades of human conversational data organized across interest-based, user-created communities (referred to as “subreddits”) spanning subjects on virtually every topic imaginable.” According to Reddit, this human-generated content is “widely seen as invaluable to AI companies,” who require a consistent source of new data to “train and operate their AI products.” Reddit “does not permit unauthorized commercialization of Reddit content absent an express agreement with guardrails in place to ensure that Reddit and its users’ rights are protected.”

Continue Reading Reddit Sues Perplexity AI and Data Scrapers for “Industrial-Scale” Theft of “Valuable Copyrighted Content”

On Tuesday, Judge Kaplan awarded approximately $500,000 attorneys’ fees, under a contractual fee-shifting provision, to a defendant that won a motion to dismiss and defended the win on appeal. The plaintiff had sought to rescind certain transactions as inconsistent with the securities laws, but the defendant successfully moved to dismiss the complaint back in February 2024. The Court declined to rule on defendant’s motion for contractually-mandated attorneys’ fees until the appeal was finalized. After the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in August, the defendant renewed its motion, based on agreements between the parties that provided for “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” in any litigation.

Continue Reading Judge Kaplan Gives 20% Haircut To Attorneys’ Fees For Appeal, Finding 100 Hours For Argument Prep “Lavish”