Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Barclays Bank PLC et al

Filing 133

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/18/15 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION to serve limited Discovery 118 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

14

ORDER
v.

15
16
17

No. 2:13-cv-2093-TLN-DAD

BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DANIEL
BRIN, SCOTT CONNELLY, KAREN
LEVINE, and RYAN SMITH,
Defendants.

18

On November 9, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for leave to serve limited discovery.

19
20

(ECF No. 118.) On November 25, 2015, FERC filed an opposition. (ECF No. 122.) On

21

December 3, 2015, Defendants filed a reply.1 (ECF No. 126.)

22

Defendants seek discovery from FERC including: 1) FERC’s investigative file; 2) all

23

documents and communications concerning the relevant trading activity; 3) FERC’s penalty

24

assessment and disgorgement calculations; 4) documents and communications concerning

25

FERC’s jurisdiction over the relevant trading activity; and 5) documents and communications

26

concerning FERC’s contentions that Defendants delivered electricity. (See ECF No. 118-1,

27

1

28

Per the October 2, 2015, scheduling order, FERC filed its administrative record on November 2, 2015, and the
motion to affirm penalties on December 2, 2015. Defendants’ opposition is due by February 1, 2016. (ECF Nos.
106, 115 & 125.)

1

1
2

Nolan Decl., Ex. 2.)
Defendants seek discovery from Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”) including

3

documents and communications that concern: 1) particular trading activity on ICE ECM by

4

Defendants and non-parties, during the relevant time period; 2) ICE investigations into

5

Defendants’ trading activity; 3) information provided by ICE to FERC, the Commodity Futures

6

Trading Commission (“CFTC”) or other agencies, relative to Defendants’ trading; 4) the purpose,

7

use and function of Reserve Quantity Orders; 5) the methodology that ICE used to calculate the

8

ICE Day-Ahead Index; 6) whether and/or how it was possible for Defendants to schedule the

9

delivery of electricity; and 7) information provided by ICE to the CFTC pursuant to CFTC Rule

10

36.3. (See ECF No. 118-1, Nolan Decl., Ex. 1.)

11

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendants’ stated reasons for conducting

12

discovery and does not find discovery is warranted at this juncture. The Court has not yet

13

considered whether the record already submitted, which FERC represents totals nearly 8,500

14

pages and includes Defendants’ trades, communications, testimony, and data analyses, is

15

sufficient for this Court’s de novo review. (ECF No. 122 at 3.) The Court will make that

16

determination relative to the briefs due per the scheduling order filed on October 2, 2015.

17

Defendants may reiterate their argument in their to-be-filed opposition that the submitted record

18

is insufficient. If the Court determines additions to the record and/or discovery are required after

19

briefing has been completed per the October 2, 2015 scheduling order, an order from this Court

20

will issue in due course. For those reasons, Defendants’ motion to serve limited discovery (ECF

21

No. 118) is DENIED.

22

Dated: December 18, 2015

23
24
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2