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)
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?