Tenezaca v. 808 Lex Restaurant, LLC

Sr ee ae EE Ee 159 Crossways Fark VYive, suite 2U1 Woodbury, NY 11797 Telephone: 516.681.1100 Matthew Cohen, Esq. mcohen @kaufmandolowich.com www.kaufmandolowich.com August 27, 2024 VIA ECF Hon. Jessica G.L. Clarke United States District Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 1040 New York, New York 10007 Re: _ Alfonso Tenezaca et al. v. 808 Lex Restaurant, LLC et al. Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-08545 Dear Judge Clarke: This firm represents the Defendants, 808 Lex Restaurant, LLC d/b/a I Gradino Restaurant, Terrence Lowenberg, and Todd Cohen (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter. In accordance with Local Rule 1.4, we write regarding our intention to file a letter motion to withdraw as Defendants’ counsel. We also write to request the Court’s permission to submit our letter motion ex parte and under seal in accordance with Rule 5 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. It is well settled that documents supporting an attorney’s request to be relieved as counsel are routinely filed under seal, or submitted ex parte, to preserve the confidentiality of the attorneyclient relationship. See Team Obsolete Ltd. v. A.H.R.M.A. Ltd. 464 F.Supp.2d 164, 165 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Weinberger v. Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 1998 WL 898309 , at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1998) (“it is appropriate for a court considering a counsel’s motion to withdraw to consider in camera submissions in order to prevent a party from being prejudiced by the application of counsel to withdraw.”). Indeed, the committee notes to Local Civil Rule 1.4 endorse such a procedure. See Local Civil Rule 1.4 (observing that the requirement for a party’s counsel to factually support an application to withdraw is “not meant to preclude the Court from permitting the reasons for withdrawal to be stated in camera and under seal in an appropriate case.”). In this matter, there is little to no public interest in the reasons why Kaufman Dolowich LLP seeks withdrawal from this matter. Indeed, publicly disclosing these reasons will likely prejudice Defendants. Accordingly, we respectfully request permission to submit a letter motion to withdraw as Defendants’ counsel ex parte and under seal. As discussed in our contemporaneous letter motion to withdraw, we respectfully request that the Court enter an Order relieving Kaufman Dolowich LLP as counsel for Defendants and staying this matter for thirty days to afford Defendants an opportunity to find new counsel. Hon. Jessica G. L. Clarke August 26, 2024 Page | 2 Finally, we respectfully request that Defendants’ deadline to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification currently due on August 28, 2024 and the Parties’ status report currently due on August 28, 2024 be held in abeyance pending the Court’s decision on our motion to withdraw. We thank Your Honor for your consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted, Kaufman Dolowich LLP 4A Matthew Cohen The Court sees no reason why the application to withdraw should be made ex parte. Indeed, the Court must hear from Plaintiffs regarding any prejudice that they might suffer as a result of granting the motion to withdraw and must hear from Plaintiffs regarding a stay. Furthermore, given the very general description of the conflicts at issue, the vast majority of counsel's letter (ECF No. 89) is not privileged. Counsel is permitted to redact the amount of fees owed and references to specific communications with Defendants. Counsel shall refile the letter with limited and appropriate redactions no later than August 30, 2024. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 89. SO ORDERED. ™ 4) |» CC \pamca KAA Re JESSICA G. L. CLARKE United States District Judge Dated: August 28, 2024 New York, New York