Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1066

ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Richard E. Brodsky dated 3/5/2013 re: Counsel writes If the Court orders that the Defendants answer the Requests for Admission, the burden on the Defendants will be light and the benefit will be great, assuming that the Defendants follow the mandate of Rule 36 and answer the requests in good faith. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record of this action the letter above submitted to the Court by plaintiffs. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 3/6/2013) (js)

Download PDF
From: Riehard E, Brodsky To: Hon, Vietor Marrero Fax: (888) 391·5819 Fa)(: +1 (212) 805-6382 Page 2 of 3 3IS120132:50 THE BRODSKY LAW FIRM, PL RICHARD E. BRODSKY. ArrORNEY AT LAW March 5,2013 d VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION The Hon. Victor Marrero United States Dish'ict Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007-1312 I~ :I , t ,. l1!:):[)C SONY DOCU:-'I [:-.or .., ELECiRO~lCALL\ I ILLO 'JDOC #: ~ftTE FILE?: " .­ Re: Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich No. 09-cv-118 (S.D.N.Y.) Standard Chartered Cases Dear Judge Marrero: I am counsel for the Maridom Plaintiffs and am writing as Liaison Counsel for the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. In their March 4, 2013 letter in response to the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' February 28, 2013 letter to Your Honor concerning the Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission, the Defendants merely cite cases that hold that Requests for Admission must be served pefore the end of discovery, but wholly ignore two important points made by the Plaintiffs in their letter: (1) the purpose of Rule 36 (streamlining trial by elimina~ing factual issues concerning plainly relevant documents and plainly relevant facts concerning which there is no doubt but proof of which would take unnecessary time), reflecting the overriding purpose of the Federal Rules, and (2) the pro¢cdural posture of this case (no trial date, not even a ruling on where trial will be held, expert depositions not even scheduled). The Plaintiffs have reaq.ily acknowledged that there is authority on both sides of the question of whethqr requests for admission are bound by discovery deadlines. The issue, however, is not as simple as toting up the cases and deciding on the basis of which position seems to be in the majority. Rather, Rule 36, like all Federal Rules of Civil Procedu:re, "should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpen$~ve determination of every action and proceeding," as required by Rule 1. Plainly, when the issue is thus considered, the most reasonable answer is that the Defendants should be required to answer the Requests fOl' Admission. 200 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, Sn. 1930 • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 WWW.THEBRODSKYLAWHRM.COM 786-220-3328· RBROlJSKY@THf.BROOSKYLAWHRM.COM To'. Hon. Victor Marrero From: Richard E. Brodsky Fax: +1 (212) 805-6382 Page 3 of 3 31S12013 2:50 Fax: (888) 391-5819 The Hon, Victor Marrero March 5, 2013 Page 2 If the Court orders that the Defendants answer the Requests for Admission, the burden on the Defendants will be light and the benefit will be great, assuming that the Defendants follow the mandate of Rule 36 and answer the requests in good faith. Sincerely yours, The Brodsky Law Firm, PL Richard E. Brodsky Attorneys for Maridom Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel, Plaintiffs' Steering Committee cc: I Counsel for Standard Chartered Defendants I Members of Standard qhartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee

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?