Prussick v. Mcdermott et al

-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CURTIS LI PRUSSICK,
Plaintiff,
-against-
PATRICK MCDERMOTT et al,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
2:23-cv-8408-SJB-ST
TISCIONE, United States Magistrate Judge:
Before this Court are three requests from pro se Plaintiff Curtis Li Prussick to: (1) prevent
this case from being published on Lexis Nexis; (2) to correct clerical errors; and (3) to compel the
United States Marshals to serve an amended complaint on forty-four parties. For the reasons set
forth below, the motions are denied.
I. 	Motion to Prevent Publication
On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to prevent this case from being published on the
Lexis Nexis database. See ECF No. 17. The motion was re-filed on August 11, 2025. See ECF No.
20.
The basis of Plaintiff’s request is: (1) he proffered with the government and does not want
that information to be made public; (2) the case pertains to whether allegedly privileged
communication between Plaintiff and several Defendants violated his constitutional rights; (3)
Plaintiff alleges an Assistant U.S. Attorney called him a racist and such allegations would be
prejudicial if made public; (4) Plaintiff alleges several Defendants abused him; (5) Plaintiff cites
mental health issues that he does not wish to be made public; and (6) Plaintiff alleges several
Defendants conducted an unlawful cavity search on him and he does not want that information to
be made public. Plaintiff does not provide any legal basis or factual information to support the
request.
Case 2:23-cv-08408-SJB-ST Document 23 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
Plaintiff has moved, at least three times, to seal portions of this docket and replace his name
with John Doe. See ECF Nos. 5, 7, and 15. Those requests rely on the same arguments raised here
– i.e. – that Plaintiff would be prejudiced and retaliated against by the public nature of this action.
Those requests were denied for failure to provide sufficient factual information and legal support.
See Orders dated December 4, 2023, January 22, 2024, and June 12, 2025. The motions here must
be denied for the same reasons. Plaintiff fails to provide any details regarding the allegedly
prejudicial effect that publication will create.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s request to prevent publication must be weighed against the public’s
right to access judicial information. The public’s access to judicial activity is a cornerstone of
American jurisprudence. Courts have long recognized “the customary and constitutionally-
embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.” Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186
(5th Cir. 1981); see also Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992) (same).
To be sure, “[t]he public interest is [] served by availability of information about ‘what the
courts do in fact’[.]” IBM Credit Corp. v. United Home for Aged Hebrews, 848 F. Supp. 495, 496
(S.D.N.Y. 1994) (quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457
(1897). Indeed, the Second Circuit has recognized that “the vital purpose of facilitating public
scrutiny of judicial proceedings . . . cannot be set aside lightly.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed
Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 188–89 (2d Cir. 2008).
To the point, Judge Sterling Johnson once held that “[i]t is neither necessary nor appropriate
for this Court to demand that . . . databases remove evidence of the court’s activities, particularly
when . . . the public has an interest in understanding the state and development of the law.” PHL
Variable Ins. Co. v. Hersko, 2012 WL 13103132, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2012). We agree.
Plaintiff’s motion to prevent this case from being published on the Lexis Nexis database is denied.
Case 2:23-cv-08408-SJB-ST Document 23 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
II. 	Motion to Correct and to Compel the Marshals to Serve
Next, Plaintiff requests that the United States Marshals serve the complaint and summons
on his behalf. See ECF No. 19. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that his fully amended complaint,
along with all supplemental pages, are served on forty-four parties listed in ECF No 19, and that
the Court correct the docket to include these forty-four defendants on the main docket sheet. See
ECF No. 22.
True, “[a]t the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made by a United
States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4. Here, however, many of the parties that Plaintiff requests the Marshals to serve were not listed
in his initial complaint. While Plaintiff did list certain John/Jane Doe defendants, it is entirely
unclear which of the forty-four additional parties are previously unknown John/Jane Does, and
which parties are entirely new defendants.
To the extent Plaintiff requests to add new parties to this action, such is governed by Rule
21. See Addison v. Reitman Blacktop, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 74, 79 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (“Where, as here, a
proposed amendment adds new parties, the propriety of amendment is governed by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 21.”); Duling v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 265 F.R.D. 91, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(“To the extent a proposed amendment would add new parties, the motion is technically governed
by Rule 21[.]”).
Rule 21 provides, in relevant part, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time,
on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Presently, there is no justification for the
Court to add new parties sua sponte. As such, Plaintiff’s request must be made through a formal
motion to add new parties. The motion must clearly identify for this Court which parties are
previously unknown defendants, formerly listed as John/Jane Doe in the original complaint, and
Case 2:23-cv-08408-SJB-ST Document 23 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

-4-
which parties are new defendants who plaintiff seeks to add to the complaint. Further, the motion
must contain legal and factual bases demonstrating why the addition of these parties are “on just
terms.” Id.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is denied without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to prevent publication on Lexis is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to correct
clerical errors and have the Marshals serve the Amended Complaint is DENIED with leave to
refile.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Steven Tiscione
Steven Tiscione
United States Magistrate Judge
Eastern District of New York
Dated: Central Islip, New York
February 11, 2026
Case 2:23-cv-08408-SJB-ST Document 23 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>