Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X : VINCI BRANDS LLC, : Plaintiff, : : -against- : 23 Civ. 5138 (LGS) : COACH SERVICES, INC., et al., : Defendants. : : -------------------------------------------------------------: ORDER : KATE SPADE LLC, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : -against- : 23 Civ. 5409 (LGS) : VINCI BRANDS LLC, et al., : Defendants. : : -------------------------------------------------------------X LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, on May 9, 2024, attorneys from the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP appeared on behalf of Case-Mate, Inc. (“Case-Mate”), a party in three related litigations -- the above-captioned actions and the related action Coach IP Holdings, LLC v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC, No. 23 Civ. 10612 (LGS); WHEREAS, all three actions include claims against Case-Mate relating to Case-Mate’s replacement of Vinci Brands LLC as licensee for certain Coach and Kate Spade products, respectively. All three actions involve substantially similar parties and legal issues; WHEREAS, extensive litigation has occurred in both actions. There are now 365 docket entries in Case No. 23 Civ. 5138 and 267 docket entries in Case No. 23 Civ. 5409. Fact discovery currently is scheduled to close in less than a month on June 6, 2024; WHEREAS, 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a) directs a judge to disqualify herself “in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See also Canon 3C(1) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. WHEREAS, the continued appearance of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP in these actions would require the recusal of this Court, “a circumstance that was or should have been known to that firm at the time of its retention.” See In re F.C.C., 208 F.3d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 2000); accord United States v. Navarro, No. S6 20 Crim. 160, 2021 WL 1948346 , at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2021). It is hereby ORDERED that the firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP shall withdraw its appearance in these matters. See Jn re F.C.C., 208 F.3d at 139-40 (“As between a judge already assigned to a panel, and a lawyer who thereafter appears in circumstances where the appearance might cause an assigned judge to be recused, the lawyer will go and the judge will stay.”); accord United States v. Khan, 538 F. Supp. 2d 937, 938 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (“binding Second Circuit precedent” directed withdrawal of attorney on judge’s conflict list). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike the appearances of the individual attorneys at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP as counsel of record for Case-Mate. Dated: May 13, 2024 New York, New York UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE