Pierre Leval

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (U.S. v. Apple, Inc., 1:12-cv-02826-DLC)

On January 21, 2014, Judge Raymond Joseph Lohier, Jr. granted a temporary stay as to the work performed by Michael Bromwich, the court-appointed monitor in the Apple e-book antitrust case. The stay was to remain in effect until a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit was available to decide whether Bromwich should be removed as monitor. In the underlying case, Judge Denise Cote found in July 2013 that Apple conspired with online publishers to fix the prices of e-books. She appointed Bromwich to oversee and monitor the company’s compliance with federal antitrust laws in October 2013. In an earlier motion filed by Apple, the company claimed that Cote’s appointment of a monitor in a civil antitrust case was unprecedented. Attorneys for Apple contested Bromwich’s hourly fee of $1,100, alleging that because of the “extremely broad powers” Cote conferred upon him, he was able to overreach in his investigations such that they bordered on interfering with the company’s daily operations. Cote denied Apple’s request to remove Bromwich as monitor just days before Lohier issued the temporary stay. In his ruling, Lohier noted that Apple’s request for Bromwich’s permanent ouster would be heard “as soon as possible” by an appellate panel. Lohier's order is available here.^[4][5]

Update

On February 10, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit composed of Judge Gerard Lynch and Senior Judges Pierre Leval and Guido Calabresi rejected Judge Lohier's stay and restored Michael Bromwich's ability to perform his duties as Apple's e-book antitrust monitor, with the understanding that Apple may pursue a further appeal to remove Bromwich from his position. In the order, the judicial panel noted that according to the government, Judge Cote's initial order was to be "interpreted narrowly." As a result, Lynch, Leval, and Calabresi agreed that as antitrust monitor, Bromwich was only to "assess the appropriateness of the compliance programs adopted by Apple and the means used to communicate those programs to its personnel." The Second Circuit panel went on to limit Bromwich's authority, empowering him to "demand only documents relevant to his authorized responsibility . . . and to interview Apple directors, officers and employees only on subjects relevant to that responsibility."^[6][7][8]

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Sacha v. Sedita, 12-4507-cv)

On November 23, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, consisting of Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, Judge Rosemary Pooler, and Senior Judge Pierre Leval, upheld the dismissal of Mark Sacha’s lawsuit against Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita III. In the underlying case, Sedita fired Sacha from his position as Assistant District Attorney following Sacha's public contention that Sedita failed to prosecute G. Steven Pigeon on allegations of election law violations (specifically, the alleged laundering of a $10,000 campaign contribution). Sacha claimed he was fired in retaliation for his criticism of Sedita and filed suit in December 2009, alleging that his First Amendment rights had been violated. Sedita filed a motion for summary judgment, and Chief Judge William Skretny of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted it in October 2012, citing the fact that his statements to the press were made in his capacity as an ADA, not as a private citizen, and thus his free speech rights had not been violated. That decision is available here. Sacha appealed Skretny's ruling to the Second Circuit, where the three-judge panel affirmed Skretny's ruling, but on alternate grounds, noting that "Sacha’s speech was sufficiently disruptive to justify terminating his employment as an assistant district attorney." Sacha vowed to file a further appeal, claiming that the Second Circuit's three-judge panel had a conflict of interest in hearing the case.^[9][10]

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Bloomberg, LP v. Board of Governors of Fed. Res., 601 F. 3d 143)

On August 24, 2009, District Judge Loretta Preska ruled that the Federal Reserve must disclose the recipients of emergency loans and aid during the economic downturn.^[11]

Bloomberg News took court action after the nation's central bank refused to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. According to the network, Bloomberg News hoped that if it made public the recipients of bailout money it would deter more bailout money from being handed out.^[11]

As part of her order, Preska gave the Federal Reserve five days to hand over the documents. On August 28, 2009, Judge Preska delayed her order requiring the Federal Reserve to disclose bailout recipients. Preska also allowed the Fed to file an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.^[12]

The case was subsequently argued in front of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on January 11, 2010, and decided on March 19, 2010. The appellate court judges, Dennis Jacobs, Pierre Leval, and Peter Hall, upheld the decision reached by Judge Preska.^[13]