Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. McDonnell et al

Filing 100

ORDER re 95 Letter filed by Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Having considered the parties' positions, this Court denies the CFTC's request, without prejudice. However, Mr. McDonnell is advised that the CFTC has been generous i n accommodating his frequent requests and that he must recognize that its counsel have other cases and obligations, and may not be able to file his submissions as quickly as he would like. Mr. McDonnell is warned that if he continues to burden the C FTC unnecessarily by requesting the filing of duplicative submissions and/or otherwise abuses the privilege that the CFTC consented to extend to him, the Court will not hesitate to allow the CFTC to withdraw its consent. Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Roanne L. Mann on 5/25/2018. (Proujansky, Josh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
18-CV-361 (JBW)

PATRICK K. MCDONNELL and
CABBAGETECH CORP.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

By letter dated May 23, 2016, plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(“CFTC”) requests that it be granted leave to withdraw its consent to electronically docket
documents on behalf of pro se defendant Patrick McDonnell. See Electronic Case Filing Docket
Entry (“DE”) #95. In the last two weeks, the CFTC has complied with approximately 19
demands from Mr. McDonnell to file documents on his behalf. Despite the CFTC’s
accommodations, Mr. McDonnell has complained numerous times about the CFTC’s purported
delay in filing his documents, the manner in which they were filed, and most recently, Mr.
McDonnell has accused the CFTC’s counsel of altering the documents he submitted to them
before filing. See, e.g., DE #76, #80, #81, #94, #95-1, #95-2. At times, Mr. McDonnell’s
complaints have become abusive and threatening. See DE #95-1. Mr. McDonnell opposes the
CFTC’s application and requests that it continue to file documents on his behalf, promising to
send such documents to counsel in a format that will relieve them of some of the burden imposed
by such filing. See DE #97.
Having considered the parties’ positions, this Court denies the CFTC’s request, without

prejudice. However, Mr. McDonnell is advised that the CFTC has been generous in
accommodating his frequent requests and that he must recognize that its counsel have other cases
and obligations, and may not be able to file his submissions as quickly as he would like.
Nevertheless, the speed with which the CFTC has acted has resulted in far more expeditious filing
than would result if Mr. McDonnell had to rely on mailing his submissions to the Clerk’s Office
-- as evidenced by the docketing today of his Motion for Reconsideration, which was received by
the Clerk’s office on May 17, 2018. See DE #99. Moreover, Mr. McDonnell is advised that it
is not necessary for him to make repeated submissions containing essentially the same material.
For example, Mr. McDonnell has made at least five different filings drawing the Court’s attention
to a decision in CFTC v. Monex Credit Company, issued by a district judge in the Central
District of California, which he argues is dispositive of the claims asserted against him here.
See, e.g., DE #69, #70, #75, #87, #99. Mr. McDonnell is warned that if he continues to burden
the CFTC unnecessarily by requesting the filing of duplicative submissions and/or otherwise
abuses the privilege that the CFTC consented to extend to him, the Court will not hesitate to
allow the CFTC to withdraw that consent.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
May 25, 2018
/s/

Roanne L. Mann

ROANNE L. MANN
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2