{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DECLINED/WITHDRAWN (Motion #002)","alternateName":"NYSCEF-Document-000069.pdf","caption":"NYSCEF document #69 | Filed: 2026-10-16 | Filed by: Court User Filed:  Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Source: NYSCEF, New York County Supreme Court","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/437/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-16T17:04:43+00:00","description":"NYSCEF document #69 | Filed: 2026-10-16 | Filed by: Court User Filed:  Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Source: NYSCEF, New York County Supreme Court","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"437","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/437/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/437/index.md"},"name":"ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DECLINED/WITHDRAWN (Motion #002)","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\n\nAt Part 35 of the Supreme Court of\nthe State of New York County of New York,\nheld at the Courthouse located at 60 Centrg\nStreet, New York, NY 10007 on the\nday of October, 2026\n\nPRESEN HONORABLE PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND, J.S.C.\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK\n\nSUPREME COURT COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\neee eee eee MS 4\n\nJANE DOE, ORDER TY SHOW CAUSE\n\nCompel\nRiaintiff,\n\n-against- Indg&k No. 161704/2026\n\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC., CHAPHI CHAPTER\n\nHOUSE ASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC/\n\nCHI PHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPNA BETA H@USE\n\nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELYA, DEIA\u2019A\n\nDELTA DELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTRKRPRISE LLC\n\nd/b/a MOONIES BAR & NIGHTCLUB, MATTHEW\n\nINGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL, WINSTQN\\EE,\n\nGILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTY/NORNIS,\n\nSCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE (FXCULTY),\n\nJOHN DOE (ALUMNI), JOHN DOES (EKECUTIVE\n\nBOARD), and ORAZIO PETITO,\n\nDefendants.\n\nUpon reading and filig the annexed Affirmation of James C. Krigx, Esq. and Alishah E.\nBhimani, Esq. of the law/firm of HACKER MURPHY, LLP, attorneys for\\Defendant DIEGO\nSARABIA, dated Octyber 13, 2026, together with the exhibits annexed thereto, thaaccompanying\nMemorandum of aw, and all prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, and sufficient cause\nappearing thergfor, it is hereby:\n\nLet\n\nDERDEREDthat ALL PARTIES show cause before the Honorable Phaedra F. P&rry-\n\nBond, #.S.C., at IAS Part 35, Room _252_, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York\u2019\n1\n1 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\nCounty of New York, located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York, on the day of\nOctober 2026, at am/pm, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an Order\n\nshowd not be entered granting the following relief:\n\nLs Restraining extrajudicial statements. Directing all parties, their respective\nattorneys, andNother legal representatives to refrain from making extrajudicial statements\nconcerning this actiotthat they know, or reasonably should know/will be disseminated by means\nof public communication aad that have a substantial likelifood of materially prejudicing the\nadjudicative process in this action}\n\nDe Restraining indirect or authorized pa\u00e9blic statements. Directing all parties, their\nrespective attorneys, and other legal representatives not to make, authorize, encourage, or cause\nany public or media statement concerning this/actiorNo be made that would violate the restrictions\nset forth herein if made by an attorney pagficipating in tht action;\n\ncP Restricting disclosur\u00a2 of specified information. Prohibiting all parties, their\nrespective attorneys, and other lggal representatives from publidly disclosing, republishing, or\n\ndisseminating the following information, subject to the exceptions set farth below:\n\na. Anyfresidential address or other nonpublic personal Nentifying\ninformation concerning any party, witness, alleged vic, or nonparty;\n\nb. Materials produced in discovery that have not been filed ir\\a publicly\naccessible court record;\n\nStatements concerning the expected testimony, character, credibWity,\nreputation, or personal history of any party or witness, where such\nstatements create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the\nadjudication of this action;\n\na The contents or purported contents of any nonpublic statement,\ncommunication, examination, test, investigative material, or physical\nevidence that may be offered in this action, where disclosure creates a\nsubstantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the adjudication of this\naction; and\n\n2 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO.\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF:\ne Any statement inviting, encouraging, or facilitating threats, hap\u00e9ssment,\n\nJ.S.C.\n\nintimidation, doxing, or extrajudicial contact directed toward/any party,\nwitness, counsel, juror, prospective juror, or nonparty;\n\n4 Exceptions to the requested restrictions. Providing that the foregoing restrictions\nshall not proWbit:\na. Statements made in open court or in papers pfoperly filed with the Court;\n\nb. amnmunications reasonably necessary tg investigate, prosecute, defend,\nor resolve this action;\n\nom Communtsations required by law, gourt order, insurance obligations, or\napplicable institutional reportingfequirements;\nd. Statements permitted under Riule 3.6(c) of the New York Rules of\n\nProfessional Conduct, provided that such statements otherwise comply\nwith Rule 3.6(a);\n\n&. A narrowly limited statemeht permitted under Rule 3.6(d) of the New\nYork Rules of Professional Cdaduct and reasonably necessary to mitigate\nsubstantial prejudj\u00e9ial effects caused by recent publicity not initiated by\nthe responding attorney or client; aad\n\nf. Good-faith r\u00a2ports of threats, harassm\u00e9nt, intimidation, or unlawful\nconduct to Jaw-enforcement authorities or the Court;\n\n3. Duration of r@Strictions. Directing that the restrictions imposed by the resulting\nOrder remain in effect unt the completion of trial or further order of tye Court; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that, pending the hearing and determination of this ayplication by the Court,\nall parties, their resp\u20acctive attorneys, and other legal representatives shall abide by the restrictions\nset forth above; ghd it is further\n\nORDERED, that service of a copy of this Order to Show Cause, together with the papers\nupon whigh it is based, upon those parties who have appeared in this action shall be made by\nelectrofic mail or facsimile, and that service upon any defendant who has not appeared shall be\n\nmade by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to such defendant at his or her la\n\n3 of 9\n\n161704/2026\n10/16/2026\n\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 PN INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\nknown address, in each case on or before the day of October 2026, and suchervice shall\n\nbe deemed good and sufficient service; and it is further\nORDERED, that answering papers, if any, shall be served and filgd on or before the\nday of , 2026, and reply papers, if any, shall bg\u2019served and filed on or before\nthe day of , 2026, in accordang\u00e9 with the directions of the Court.\nDated:\nORAL ARGUMENT ATER:\nDIRECTED\neo Honorable Phaedra F. Perry-Bond, J.S.C.\nJ.S.C.\nSr4n~\nae ) us\n\u201c\nrl wt\nvw nee re\nSet ON } p (eos?\n4\n4 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX\"NO. 161'404/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nNEW YORK COUNTY\nPRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND PART 35\nJustice\n\naac cennnecmrenrennennin=K INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nJANE DOE, MOTION DATE N/A\n\nintiff,\nPlaint MOTION SEQ. NO. 002\n- V -\n\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC.,CHI PHI CHAPTER HOUSE\n\nASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,CHI PHI\n\nEDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA BETA HOUSE\n\nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELTA, DELTA DELTA\n\nDELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTERPRISE\n\nLLC,MATTHEW INGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL,\n\nWINSTON LEE, GILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT\n\nNORRIS, SCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE, JOHN\n\nDOE, JOHN DOES, ORAZIO PETITO,\n\nDefendant.\neee\nThe following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 48, 49, 50, 66, 67,\n68\nwere read on this motion to/for INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER .\nUpon the foregoing documents, and after considering the parties\u2019 letter submissions, the\nCourt declines to sign defendant Diego Sarabia\u2019s (\u201c\u201cSarabia\u201d) proposed order to show cause\nseeking, amongst other things, an order enjoining all parties and their attorneys from making\ncertain extrajudicial statements, including to the media, and prohibiting the disclosure,\nrepublishing, or dissemination of certain statements or documents exchanged in this case.\nNormally, the Court does not give a detailed explanation of its decision to decline to sign an order\nto show cause, but because of the weighty issues involved and the dynamic circumstances of this\ncase, the Court finds it appropriate.\nAbsent a rigorous factual showing of necessity for a restraint on an individual\u2019s ability to\n\nspeak freely, the imposition of a gag order upon attorneys and other participants in a trial is\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 5\n\nMotion No. 002\n\n5 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\n\nconstitutionally impermissible (see New York Times Co. v Rothwax, 143 AD2d 592, 592 [1st Dept\n1988]). Orders such as the one sought here \u201care not generally permitted,\u201d especially in civil\nproceedings (see generally Lowinger v Lowinger, 264 AD2d 763, 763 [2d Dept 1999]; see also\nBarker v Victorious Life Christian Church, 72 Misc.3d 898, 901-902 [Sup. Ct., Albany County\n2021)).\n\nWhen considering the drastic remedy of whether to subordinate certain First Amendment\nRights to interests that arise in the trial setting, the Court weighs three questions: (1) whether the\nrestriction is justified by a serious risk of prejudice to an ongoing judicial proceeding; (2) whether\nthere are less restrictive means that could address the risk of prejudice; and (3) whether the\nrestriction is narrowly tailored to address the potential prejudice (see Trump v Merchan, 227 AD3d\n518, 519-520 [1st Dept 2024] citing United States v Trump, 88 F.4th 990, 1007 [DC Cir. 2023)).\n\nThe initial supporting papers on the proposed order to show cause do not meet the rigorous\nrequirements to even entertain a briefing schedule on the relief sought. Expressing opinions on the\ncase or reporting on how the litigation has impacted clients cannot alone serve as a factual basis\nfor limiting an individual\u2019s First Amendment rights. While the Court agrees that Mr. Giuffra\nshould not make statements that certain parties spoliated evidence, especially where, as here, no\ndiscovery has yet to take place, those isolated statements, without more, are insufficient to show\nthe serious risk of prejudice required by precedent and the United States Constitution. Indeed, there\nis nothing stopping defendants from demonstrating through the course of litigation that those\nStatements are false, and in civil litigation there are numerous examples of curative jury\ninstructions to ensure a jury does not consider impermissible or unfounded statements made during\ntrial or in the course of pre-trial proceedings. A review of the statements of which Mr. Sarabia\n\ncomplains shows that the majority of statements would be understood by an ordinary listener to\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL\nMotion No. 002 UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 5\n\n6 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\n\nexpress nothing more than Mr. Giuffra\u2019s opinions. That is insufficient to justify the drastic relief\nproposed in the order to show cause. Thus, on its face, the proposed order to show cause fails to\nshow a \u2018serious risk of prejudice to an ongoing judicial proceeding.\u201d\n\nMoreover, as noted by counsel for Cornell University, Inc. (\u201cCornell\u201d) the requested\nprohibitions on disclosure of specified information are incredibly broad and would infringe on\ncertain intuitional defendants\u2019 ability to comply with mandatory reporting requirements (see, e.g.\nNS. v Frankenhoff, 215 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2023] [restraint on disclosure was overly broad\nthus warranting vacatur]). Mr. Sarabia\u2019s proposed restrictions thus are not the \u201cleast restrictive\nmeans\u201d to address the prejudice and certainly are not narrowly tailored. Thus, the proposed order\nto show cause fails on all three inquiries adopted by the First Department in Trump v. Merchan,\n227 A.D.3d 518 (1st Dept 2024). Accordingly, the Court declines to sign Mr. Sarabia\u2019s proposed\norder to show cause.\n\nNot to mention, the parties\u2019 attorneys, being bound by the rules of professional conduct,\nshould not need a gag order to properly litigate this case. The Court has concerns that Mr. Sarabia\u2019s\nproposed order to show cause is a \u201cside show\u201d meant to muddy the waters and distract from the\nmerits of the claims and defenses involved in this case. The Court declines, at this juncture, to get\ninvolved in constantly adjudicating who can say what and how they can say it. Otherwise, this case\nwill become less about the relevant claims and defenses and will become bogged down in litigation\nabout whether attorneys have crossed the line when talking to the media.\n\nTo that end, the Court strongly encourages the parties, in the spirit of professionalism and\ncollegiality, to work with each other to submit a proposed framework for future Court filings and\nstatements. The Court believes that given the notoriety of doxing related to this case, it would\n\nserve all parties\u2019 interests to work together to ensure their clients and others may be safeguarded\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVER\nMotion No. 002 SITY, INS) ET Al: Page 3 of \u00a7\n\n7 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\n\nto the extent possible, from being inundated with threats or harassment from malicious outside\nactors. The Court highlights Cornell\u2019s suggesting that the parties \u201cdiscuss the language of an\nappropriate order either stipulated by the parties or resolved by the Court\u201d so that moving forward,\nthere exists an established framework in place to ensure there is not another incident akin to the\nincident of an uninvolved Marine\u2019s family being doxxed, threatened, and harassed.\n\nFinally, this court notes the law firm of Hacker Murphy, LLP uploaded correspondence\n(NYSCEF Doc. 67) attaching as an exhibit an e-mail authored by a non-party. The letter, styled as\na \u2018reply\u2019 was unauthorized as the Court did not permit any reply regarding briefing on the requested\ntemporary restraining order. But the Court finds most offensive the decision to include with the\nletter an exhibit consisting of correspondence from an attorney who has not filed a notice of\nappearance in this case essentially threatening another attorney who is involved in this case. A\nnon-party has no standing to submit argument or correspondence in this action without prior leave\nof Court, and that rule cannot be circumvented by including arguments or correspondence authored\nby the non-party as an exhibit. The offending exhibit, consisting of correspondence from a non-\nparty, filed without leave of court, offers no competent or relevant evidence regarding the\napplication and appears to have been filed for no other reason than to attract salacious tabloid\nreporting. The Court will not tolerate its docket being used to generate media controversy, and this\nCourt does not tolerate attorneys, especially attorneys who are not even involved in this case,\nengaging in mudslinging. This Court and the profession demand higher standards.\n\nTherefore, exhibit \u201cA\u201d to Hacker Murphy LLP\u2019s letter dated October 15, 2026 will be\nstricken! from the record and counsel are warned that if that behavior continues, the Court will not\n\nhesitate to issue sanctions against the offending party. Lastly, counsel for Plaintiff is reminded that\n\n! The County Clerk has informed the Court that he cannot \u201cdelete\u201d the filing from NYSCEF. Therefore, the document\nwill be sealed to all parties and the public so that no one can access it as part of the record.\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 5\nMotion No. 002\n\n8 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 9 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\npursuant to this Court\u2019s decision and order dated October 9, 2026, a redacted version of the\ncomplaint, request for judicial intervention, and amended request for judicial intervention must be\nfiled on the docket.\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\nORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Court declines to sign defendant Diego Sarabia\u2019s\nproposed order to show cause; and it is further\nORDERED that on or before October 20, 2026, counsel for plaintiff shall file redacted\nversions of the complaint, request for judicial intervention, and amended request for judicial\nintervention, as directed in this Court\u2019s Decision and Order dated October 9, 2026 (see NYSCEF\nDocs. 43-44); and it is further\nORDERED that upon notice of entry of this Decision and Order and the accompanying\nsealing order, the County Clerk shall immediately seal and/or delete NYSCEF Doc. 68 from the\ndocket.\nty fre LLB\nATE HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND, J.S.C.\nCHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION\nGRANTED [ ] DENIED GRANTED IN PART [x] OTHER\nAPPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER\nCHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [| REFERENCE\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNE\nletrowzre \u00a9 vs LL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 5 of 5\n9 of 9\n","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\n\nAt Part 35 of the Supreme Court of\nthe State of New York County of New York,\nheld at the Courthouse located at 60 Centrg\nStreet, New York, NY 10007 on the\nday of October, 2026\n\nPRESEN HONORABLE PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND, J.S.C.\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK\n\nSUPREME COURT COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\neee eee eee MS 4\n\nJANE DOE, ORDER TY SHOW CAUSE\n\nCompel\nRiaintiff,\n\n-against- Indg&k No. 161704/2026\n\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC., CHAPHI CHAPTER\n\nHOUSE ASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC/\n\nCHI PHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPNA BETA H@USE\n\nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELYA, DEIA\u2019A\n\nDELTA DELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTRKRPRISE LLC\n\nd/b/a MOONIES BAR & NIGHTCLUB, MATTHEW\n\nINGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL, WINSTQN\\EE,\n\nGILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTY/NORNIS,\n\nSCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE (FXCULTY),\n\nJOHN DOE (ALUMNI), JOHN DOES (EKECUTIVE\n\nBOARD), and ORAZIO PETITO,\n\nDefendants.\n\nUpon reading and filig the annexed Affirmation of James C. Krigx, Esq. and Alishah E.\nBhimani, Esq. of the law/firm of HACKER MURPHY, LLP, attorneys for\\Defendant DIEGO\nSARABIA, dated Octyber 13, 2026, together with the exhibits annexed thereto, thaaccompanying\nMemorandum of aw, and all prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, and sufficient cause\nappearing thergfor, it is hereby:\n\nLet\n\nDERDEREDthat ALL PARTIES show cause before the Honorable Phaedra F. P&rry-\n\nBond, #.S.C., at IAS Part 35, Room _252_, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York\u2019\n1\n1 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\nCounty of New York, located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York, on the day of\nOctober 2026, at am/pm, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an Order\n\nshowd not be entered granting the following relief:\n\nLs Restraining extrajudicial statements. Directing all parties, their respective\nattorneys, andNother legal representatives to refrain from making extrajudicial statements\nconcerning this actiotthat they know, or reasonably should know/will be disseminated by means\nof public communication aad that have a substantial likelifood of materially prejudicing the\nadjudicative process in this action}\n\nDe Restraining indirect or authorized pa\u00e9blic statements. Directing all parties, their\nrespective attorneys, and other legal representatives not to make, authorize, encourage, or cause\nany public or media statement concerning this/actiorNo be made that would violate the restrictions\nset forth herein if made by an attorney pagficipating in tht action;\n\ncP Restricting disclosur\u00a2 of specified information. Prohibiting all parties, their\nrespective attorneys, and other lggal representatives from publidly disclosing, republishing, or\n\ndisseminating the following information, subject to the exceptions set farth below:\n\na. Anyfresidential address or other nonpublic personal Nentifying\ninformation concerning any party, witness, alleged vic, or nonparty;\n\nb. Materials produced in discovery that have not been filed ir\\a publicly\naccessible court record;\n\nStatements concerning the expected testimony, character, credibWity,\nreputation, or personal history of any party or witness, where such\nstatements create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the\nadjudication of this action;\n\na The contents or purported contents of any nonpublic statement,\ncommunication, examination, test, investigative material, or physical\nevidence that may be offered in this action, where disclosure creates a\nsubstantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the adjudication of this\naction; and\n\n2 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO.\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF:\ne Any statement inviting, encouraging, or facilitating threats, hap\u00e9ssment,\n\nJ.S.C.\n\nintimidation, doxing, or extrajudicial contact directed toward/any party,\nwitness, counsel, juror, prospective juror, or nonparty;\n\n4 Exceptions to the requested restrictions. Providing that the foregoing restrictions\nshall not proWbit:\na. Statements made in open court or in papers pfoperly filed with the Court;\n\nb. amnmunications reasonably necessary tg investigate, prosecute, defend,\nor resolve this action;\n\nom Communtsations required by law, gourt order, insurance obligations, or\napplicable institutional reportingfequirements;\nd. Statements permitted under Riule 3.6(c) of the New York Rules of\n\nProfessional Conduct, provided that such statements otherwise comply\nwith Rule 3.6(a);\n\n&. A narrowly limited statemeht permitted under Rule 3.6(d) of the New\nYork Rules of Professional Cdaduct and reasonably necessary to mitigate\nsubstantial prejudj\u00e9ial effects caused by recent publicity not initiated by\nthe responding attorney or client; aad\n\nf. Good-faith r\u00a2ports of threats, harassm\u00e9nt, intimidation, or unlawful\nconduct to Jaw-enforcement authorities or the Court;\n\n3. Duration of r@Strictions. Directing that the restrictions imposed by the resulting\nOrder remain in effect unt the completion of trial or further order of tye Court; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that, pending the hearing and determination of this ayplication by the Court,\nall parties, their resp\u20acctive attorneys, and other legal representatives shall abide by the restrictions\nset forth above; ghd it is further\n\nORDERED, that service of a copy of this Order to Show Cause, together with the papers\nupon whigh it is based, upon those parties who have appeared in this action shall be made by\nelectrofic mail or facsimile, and that service upon any defendant who has not appeared shall be\n\nmade by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to such defendant at his or her la\n\n3 of 9\n\n161704/2026\n10/16/2026\n\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 PN INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\nknown address, in each case on or before the day of October 2026, and suchervice shall\n\nbe deemed good and sufficient service; and it is further\nORDERED, that answering papers, if any, shall be served and filgd on or before the\nday of , 2026, and reply papers, if any, shall bg\u2019served and filed on or before\nthe day of , 2026, in accordang\u00e9 with the directions of the Court.\nDated:\nORAL ARGUMENT ATER:\nDIRECTED\neo Honorable Phaedra F. Perry-Bond, J.S.C.\nJ.S.C.\nSr4n~\nae ) us\n\u201c\nrl wt\nvw nee re\nSet ON } p (eos?\n4\n4 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX\"NO. 161'404/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nNEW YORK COUNTY\nPRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND PART 35\nJustice\n\naac cennnecmrenrennennin=K INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nJANE DOE, MOTION DATE N/A\n\nintiff,\nPlaint MOTION SEQ. NO. 002\n- V -\n\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC.,CHI PHI CHAPTER HOUSE\n\nASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,CHI PHI\n\nEDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA BETA HOUSE\n\nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELTA, DELTA DELTA\n\nDELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTERPRISE\n\nLLC,MATTHEW INGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL,\n\nWINSTON LEE, GILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT\n\nNORRIS, SCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE, JOHN\n\nDOE, JOHN DOES, ORAZIO PETITO,\n\nDefendant.\neee\nThe following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 48, 49, 50, 66, 67,\n68\nwere read on this motion to/for INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER .\nUpon the foregoing documents, and after considering the parties\u2019 letter submissions, the\nCourt declines to sign defendant Diego Sarabia\u2019s (\u201c\u201cSarabia\u201d) proposed order to show cause\nseeking, amongst other things, an order enjoining all parties and their attorneys from making\ncertain extrajudicial statements, including to the media, and prohibiting the disclosure,\nrepublishing, or dissemination of certain statements or documents exchanged in this case.\nNormally, the Court does not give a detailed explanation of its decision to decline to sign an order\nto show cause, but because of the weighty issues involved and the dynamic circumstances of this\ncase, the Court finds it appropriate.\nAbsent a rigorous factual showing of necessity for a restraint on an individual\u2019s ability to\n\nspeak freely, the imposition of a gag order upon attorneys and other participants in a trial is\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 5\n\nMotion No. 002\n\n5 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\n\nconstitutionally impermissible (see New York Times Co. v Rothwax, 143 AD2d 592, 592 [1st Dept\n1988]). Orders such as the one sought here \u201care not generally permitted,\u201d especially in civil\nproceedings (see generally Lowinger v Lowinger, 264 AD2d 763, 763 [2d Dept 1999]; see also\nBarker v Victorious Life Christian Church, 72 Misc.3d 898, 901-902 [Sup. Ct., Albany County\n2021)).\n\nWhen considering the drastic remedy of whether to subordinate certain First Amendment\nRights to interests that arise in the trial setting, the Court weighs three questions: (1) whether the\nrestriction is justified by a serious risk of prejudice to an ongoing judicial proceeding; (2) whether\nthere are less restrictive means that could address the risk of prejudice; and (3) whether the\nrestriction is narrowly tailored to address the potential prejudice (see Trump v Merchan, 227 AD3d\n518, 519-520 [1st Dept 2024] citing United States v Trump, 88 F.4th 990, 1007 [DC Cir. 2023)).\n\nThe initial supporting papers on the proposed order to show cause do not meet the rigorous\nrequirements to even entertain a briefing schedule on the relief sought. Expressing opinions on the\ncase or reporting on how the litigation has impacted clients cannot alone serve as a factual basis\nfor limiting an individual\u2019s First Amendment rights. While the Court agrees that Mr. Giuffra\nshould not make statements that certain parties spoliated evidence, especially where, as here, no\ndiscovery has yet to take place, those isolated statements, without more, are insufficient to show\nthe serious risk of prejudice required by precedent and the United States Constitution. Indeed, there\nis nothing stopping defendants from demonstrating through the course of litigation that those\nStatements are false, and in civil litigation there are numerous examples of curative jury\ninstructions to ensure a jury does not consider impermissible or unfounded statements made during\ntrial or in the course of pre-trial proceedings. A review of the statements of which Mr. Sarabia\n\ncomplains shows that the majority of statements would be understood by an ordinary listener to\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL\nMotion No. 002 UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 5\n\n6 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\n\nexpress nothing more than Mr. Giuffra\u2019s opinions. That is insufficient to justify the drastic relief\nproposed in the order to show cause. Thus, on its face, the proposed order to show cause fails to\nshow a \u2018serious risk of prejudice to an ongoing judicial proceeding.\u201d\n\nMoreover, as noted by counsel for Cornell University, Inc. (\u201cCornell\u201d) the requested\nprohibitions on disclosure of specified information are incredibly broad and would infringe on\ncertain intuitional defendants\u2019 ability to comply with mandatory reporting requirements (see, e.g.\nNS. v Frankenhoff, 215 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2023] [restraint on disclosure was overly broad\nthus warranting vacatur]). Mr. Sarabia\u2019s proposed restrictions thus are not the \u201cleast restrictive\nmeans\u201d to address the prejudice and certainly are not narrowly tailored. Thus, the proposed order\nto show cause fails on all three inquiries adopted by the First Department in Trump v. Merchan,\n227 A.D.3d 518 (1st Dept 2024). Accordingly, the Court declines to sign Mr. Sarabia\u2019s proposed\norder to show cause.\n\nNot to mention, the parties\u2019 attorneys, being bound by the rules of professional conduct,\nshould not need a gag order to properly litigate this case. The Court has concerns that Mr. Sarabia\u2019s\nproposed order to show cause is a \u201cside show\u201d meant to muddy the waters and distract from the\nmerits of the claims and defenses involved in this case. The Court declines, at this juncture, to get\ninvolved in constantly adjudicating who can say what and how they can say it. Otherwise, this case\nwill become less about the relevant claims and defenses and will become bogged down in litigation\nabout whether attorneys have crossed the line when talking to the media.\n\nTo that end, the Court strongly encourages the parties, in the spirit of professionalism and\ncollegiality, to work with each other to submit a proposed framework for future Court filings and\nstatements. The Court believes that given the notoriety of doxing related to this case, it would\n\nserve all parties\u2019 interests to work together to ensure their clients and others may be safeguarded\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVER\nMotion No. 002 SITY, INS) ET Al: Page 3 of \u00a7\n\n7 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\n\nto the extent possible, from being inundated with threats or harassment from malicious outside\nactors. The Court highlights Cornell\u2019s suggesting that the parties \u201cdiscuss the language of an\nappropriate order either stipulated by the parties or resolved by the Court\u201d so that moving forward,\nthere exists an established framework in place to ensure there is not another incident akin to the\nincident of an uninvolved Marine\u2019s family being doxxed, threatened, and harassed.\n\nFinally, this court notes the law firm of Hacker Murphy, LLP uploaded correspondence\n(NYSCEF Doc. 67) attaching as an exhibit an e-mail authored by a non-party. The letter, styled as\na \u2018reply\u2019 was unauthorized as the Court did not permit any reply regarding briefing on the requested\ntemporary restraining order. But the Court finds most offensive the decision to include with the\nletter an exhibit consisting of correspondence from an attorney who has not filed a notice of\nappearance in this case essentially threatening another attorney who is involved in this case. A\nnon-party has no standing to submit argument or correspondence in this action without prior leave\nof Court, and that rule cannot be circumvented by including arguments or correspondence authored\nby the non-party as an exhibit. The offending exhibit, consisting of correspondence from a non-\nparty, filed without leave of court, offers no competent or relevant evidence regarding the\napplication and appears to have been filed for no other reason than to attract salacious tabloid\nreporting. The Court will not tolerate its docket being used to generate media controversy, and this\nCourt does not tolerate attorneys, especially attorneys who are not even involved in this case,\nengaging in mudslinging. This Court and the profession demand higher standards.\n\nTherefore, exhibit \u201cA\u201d to Hacker Murphy LLP\u2019s letter dated October 15, 2026 will be\nstricken! from the record and counsel are warned that if that behavior continues, the Court will not\n\nhesitate to issue sanctions against the offending party. Lastly, counsel for Plaintiff is reminded that\n\n! The County Clerk has informed the Court that he cannot \u201cdelete\u201d the filing from NYSCEF. Therefore, the document\nwill be sealed to all parties and the public so that no one can access it as part of the record.\n\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 5\nMotion No. 002\n\n8 of 9\n\n\n--- Page 9 ---\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/2026 01:03 P INDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2026\npursuant to this Court\u2019s decision and order dated October 9, 2026, a redacted version of the\ncomplaint, request for judicial intervention, and amended request for judicial intervention must be\nfiled on the docket.\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\nORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Court declines to sign defendant Diego Sarabia\u2019s\nproposed order to show cause; and it is further\nORDERED that on or before October 20, 2026, counsel for plaintiff shall file redacted\nversions of the complaint, request for judicial intervention, and amended request for judicial\nintervention, as directed in this Court\u2019s Decision and Order dated October 9, 2026 (see NYSCEF\nDocs. 43-44); and it is further\nORDERED that upon notice of entry of this Decision and Order and the accompanying\nsealing order, the County Clerk shall immediately seal and/or delete NYSCEF Doc. 68 from the\ndocket.\nty fre LLB\nATE HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND, J.S.C.\nCHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION\nGRANTED [ ] DENIED GRANTED IN PART [x] OTHER\nAPPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER\nCHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [| REFERENCE\n161704/2026 DOE, JANE vs. CORNE\nletrowzre \u00a9 vs LL UNIVERSITY, INC. ET AL Page 5 of 5\n9 of 9\n","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/437/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/437"}