Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1045

ORDER: have reviewed Mr. Brodsky's letter dated February 13, 2013, and see no need for a conference. On the plaintiffs' view of the parties' respective burdens, the defendants' rebuttal reports should have been served on August 2, 2012, because they related to affirmative defenses. For reasons previously recited on the record, I do not necessarily agree. If, however, the reports had been served on the schedule the plaintiffs deem appropriate, the plaintiffs would have had to submit opposition reports in order to have their experts testify to any additional opinions not set forth in their experts' original reports. With this ruling in hand, I hope that counsel will be able to work out any scheduling disputes. If they are unable to do so, they should submit a joint letter requesting a scheduling conference. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas on 2/13/2013) (ft)

flJSDC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------)(
PASHA S. ANWAR, et al.,

DOCUMENT
ELECfRO,!\HCALLY FILED.
DOC#:
DATE FILED: '2/' <) f'13 .

---------------­
I

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
-against-

09 ClV. 118 (VM) (FM)
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LTD, et al.,
Defendants.
This Document Relates to the
Standard Chartered Cases

----------------------------------------------------------)(
FRANK l\tIAAS, United States Magistrate Judge.
I have reviewed Mr. Brodsky's letter dated February 13, 2013, and see no
need for a conference. On the plaintiffs' view of the parties' respective burdens, the
defendants' rebuttal reports should have been served on August 2, 2012, because they
related to affirmative defenses. For reasons previously recited on the record, I do not
necessarily agree. If, however, the reports had been served on the schedule the plaintiffs
deem appropriate, the plaintiffs would have had to submit opposition reports in order to
have their e)(perts testify to any additional opinions not set forth in their experts' original
reports.
The January 10 Order permitted the plaintiffs to submit sur-rebuttal reports.
My use of the word "permitted" was intentional. If there is nothing that the plaintiffs
e)(pect to proffer in opposition to the defendants' e)(pert reports that is not contained in
their own e)(perts' initial reports, there is nothing further they need include in a sur­
rebuttal report. On the other hand, if there is such additional material, they would be well
advised to include it in a further report. Should they fail to do so, they may find that
Judge Marrero or I preclude them from proffering testimony that they wish to adduce.
With this ruling in hand, I hope that counsel will be able to work out any
scheduling disputes. If they are unable to do so, they should submit a joint letter
requesting a scheduling conference.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
February 13,2013

FRANKMAAS
United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

Hon. Victor Marrero
United States District Judge
All counsel (via ECF)

2