Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ryan et al
ORDER granting the 33 Motion to Intervene; granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Stay. Paul A. Levine, Esq., the Court-appointedReceiver, may continue to obtain document discovery from third parties. Signed by Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue on 10/8/10. (jlr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v1:10-CV- 513 (NAM/RFT) MATTHEW JOHN RYAN and PRIME RATE AND RETURN, LLC, individually and doing business as AMERICAN INTEGRITY FINANCIAL CO., Defendants .
N A M
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor.
APPEARANCES: U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission 3 World Financial Center New York, New York 10281 Attorneys for Plaintiff Matthew John Ryan 125 South Road Cropseyville, New York 12052 Defendant, Pro Se
OF COUNSEL: Kristine M. Zaleskas, Esq. Preethi Krishnamurthy, Esq. Steven G. Rawlings, Esq.
Lemery Greisler LLC Paul A. Levine, Esq. 50 Beaver Street Albany, New York 12207 Receiver for Defendant Prime Rate and Return, LLC Office of United States Attorney 218 James T. Foley United States Courthouse 445 Broadway Albany, New York 12207 Intervenor Thomas A. Capezza, Assistant United States Attorney
Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
The United States moves (Dkt. No. 33) to intervene and for a stay of discovery pending completion of the criminal prosecution, United States v. Matthew John Ryan, 1:10-CR-319 (N.D.N.Y.), commenced June 18, 2010. No objection is interposed, except that Paul A. Levine, Esq., the Court-appointed Receiver, seeks authorization to continue to obtain document discovery from third parties (Dkt. No. 35). Defendant Ryan, who represents himself in this action, does not object to the intervention or the stay, but states that the Receiver should not be permitted to continue with discovery from third parties (Dkt. No. 37). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds that intervention is proper under Rule 24(a)(2) and (b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United States has also demonstrated the need for a stay of discovery pending completion of the criminal prosecution. Particularly in view of the strong public interest in recovering defendants' assets, the Court grants the Receiver's request for authorization to continue to obtain document discovery from third parties. Ryan raises no specific objection to any particular discovery, nor has he made a showing of any prejudice that would arise from permitting the Receiver to pursue third-party discovery. Any dispute regarding this discovery will be handled by United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece. It is therefore ORDERED that the motion by the United States (Dkt. No. 33) to intervene and for a stay of discovery pending completion of the criminal prosecution, United States v. Matthew John Ryan, 1:10-CR-319 (N.D.N.Y.), is granted, except that Paul A. Levine, Esq., the Court-appointed Receiver, may continue to obtain document discovery from third parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 8, 2010 Syracuse, New York
M A N
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?