Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd.
Filing
103
ORDER denying 94 Motion to Reconsider. Granting 97 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BANC DE BINARY LTD. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________ )
2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF
ORDER
12
13
This case arises out of the alleged trading of unregistered securities. The Court has
14
entered a preliminary injunction, ruling that although they are not in fact options, the “binary
15
options” at issue are “securities” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The
16
Court has also granted offensive summary judgment against Defendants Oren Shabat Laurent, ET
17
Binary Options Ltd., and BO Systems Ltd. Seychelles (collectively, “Liable Defendants”). All
18
Defendants, including Banc de Binary Ltd. and BDB Services Ltd. Seychelles (collectively,
19
“Remaining Defendants”), have objected under Civil Rule 72(a) to a discovery order (the
20
“Order”) issued by the Magistrate Judge. For the reasons given herein, the Court denies the
21
objection.
22
I.
23
24
25
LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 72(a) permits a district court judge to modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s non-
dispositive ruling that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred
1
to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct
the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the
decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after
being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.
2
3
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Local R. IB 3-1(a). “Under Rule 72(a), ‘[a] finding is “clearly
5
erroneous” when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
6
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”
7
Rafano v. Patchogue-Medford Sch. Dist., No. 06-CV-5367 (JFB)(ARL), 2009 WL 789440, at
8
*12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009) (quoting Burgie v. Euro Brokers, Inc., No. 05 Civ.
9
0968(CPS)(KAM), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71386, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2008) (quoting
10
Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602,
11
622 (1993))). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes,
12
case law or rules of procedure.” Id.
13
II.
DISCUSSION
14
Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge clearly erred in ordering discovery against
15
Liable Defendants in two ways. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegation that all
16
Defendants worked in concert is insufficient to support discovery against Liable Defendants for
17
the purpose of discovering evidence of such cooperation. The Court disagrees. Discovery may
18
be directed to any nonprivileged matter relevant to any claim or defense, even if not admissible at
19
trial but reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P.
20
26(b)(1). Although Defendants argue that they did not work in concert, Plaintiff points to several
21
pieces of evidence before the Magistrate Judge indicating that they did. It was not clear error for
22
the Magistrate Judge to find that further discovery would help prove the fact. Nor does it matter
23
that Liable Defendants no longer dispute their liability. Remaining Defendants still dispute their
24
liability. Evidence of relationships between Remaining Defendants and Liable Defendants is
25
Page 2 of 3
1
therefore relevant to Plaintiff’s yet-unadjudicated claims that Remaining Defendants are liable.
2
Second, Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the stipulations of
3
liability—now superseded by the summary judgment order—were not “final” was clearly
4
erroneous. The Court disagrees. As Plaintiff notes, the stipulations of liability were only to be
5
filed if and when Remaining Defendants settled, which never occurred. And although liability of
6
Liable Defendants has now been established via the summary judgment order, the information
7
sought via the motion to compel is relevant to the claims against Liable Defendants, because, as
8
Plaintiff notes, only the fact of liability, not the amount, has been determined. Information
9
concerning the amount of proceeds obtained by Liable Defendants via their unlawful acts has not
10
yet been determined, and that amount is relevant to the claims against them, upon which final
11
judgment has not yet been entered, because the remedy is disgorgement and civil fines.
12
CONCLUSION
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 94) is DENIED.
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 97) is GRANTED.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Datedthis 4th day of December, 2014.
Dated this 16th day of December, 2014.
17
18
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?