SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X : DAVID RENNIE, : : Plaintiff, : : 23-CV-5226 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER TOP VIEW/ GO NEW YORK TIMES TOURS : / SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL, : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------- X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: Plaintiff David Rennie (“Rennie”) moves for a protective order, (Doc. 9), and for sanctions against Defendant Go New York Tours, (“Go New York Tours”), for the improvident removal of this case (“Rennie II”), (Doc. 8). Rennie’s motion for a protective order is DENIED. Rennie made functionally the same motion in Rennie v. Top View / Top View / Go New York Tours / South East Personnel, No. 23-cv-4013 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2023) (“Rennie I”), and indeed, the first two pages of the motions in these cases appear to be substantially identical. (Compare Rennie I, Doc. 4 with Rennie II, Doc. 9.) I denied Rennie’s motion for a protective order in Rennie I as lacking any basis in law. Rennie I, Doc. 21. His motion here is denied for the same reason. Rennie’s motion to remand remains pending. Courts routinely deny sanctions motions as premature when the motion is based on whether a separate motion is legally unsupportable. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Miller, No. 22-CV-6964 (VSB),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022) (“[W]hile sanctions under Rule 11 may be warranted for unsupportable legal arguments, courts frequently deny them as premature when the motion would force a court to prejudge the merits of a party’s legal arguments.”) (collecting cases). Given this, Rennie’s motion for sanctions is DENIED as premature. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docs. 8 and 9 and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: — August 30, 2023 Wy □□ , New York, New York Vi a wor he VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge