Hodges v. McGough Enterprises LLC et al

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED 7:23-cv-05016-NSR DOC #: Hodges v. McGough Enterprises LLC et al DATE FILED: 10/15/2025 MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaims (ECF No. 103). Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Practice Rules (“Rules”), Plaintiff was required to seek leave of Court before filing such a motion. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Rules, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew.

By separate letter dated October 8, 2025, Plaintiff also seeks leave to file (1) a motion for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and (2) a motion for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 (ECF No. 101). Both applications are DENIED without prejudice to renew.

Rule 26(c)(1), titled Protective Orders, provides that a party or person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” District courts have broad discretion in determining when such orders are appropriate and in shaping their scope. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984); Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). The party seeking a protective order bears the burden of showing good cause for its issuance.

Here, Plaintiff provides only a few examples of what he characterizes as “harassing and annoying” conduct by the Individual Named Defendant, without indicating when such conduct allegedly occurred or demonstrating that it rises to the level of harassment contemplated under Rule 26. Accordingly, the application to file a motion under Rule 26 is denied.

The Court notes, however, that this is not the first time Plaintiff has accused the Individual Named Defendant of misconduct. The parties are reminded that the Court retains broad discretion to issue a protective order and will not hesitate to do so if warranted.

As Plaintiff provides no factual or legal basis for injunctive relief, the request for leave to file a motion under Rule 65 is likewise DENIED.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this endorsement to pro se Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF. The Clerk of the Court is also respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 103.

SO ORDERED: Dated: October 15, 2025 oe White Plains, New York wo Lee, NELSON S, ROMAN United States District Judge