Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1128

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas from Richard E. Brodsky dated 4/23/2013 re: The Standard Chartered Plaintiffs Steering Committee request that this Court take such action as is necessary to indicate that the Stipulation and order in question do not apply to or govern proceedings in the Standard Chartered Cases. ENDORSEMENT: Unless and until the Court otherwise orders, expert discovery on The Standard Charted cases will not be governed by the terms set forth in ECF No. 1115. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas on 5/1/2013) (ft)

From: Richard E. Brodsky

To: Frank Maas

Fax: (888) 391·5819

Page 2 of 3 4123f20135:34

Fax: [phone]·6724

THE BRODSKY LAW FIRM,
RICHARD

PL

E. BRODSKY. A TIORNEY AT

LAW

VIA FAX TRANSMISSION (212-805-6724)

SDNY

April 23, 2013

DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:

DATE FI-L-ED-:--:------.

The Hon. Frank Maas
United States Magistrate Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse

500 Pearl Street
Uvt~ ~
New York, New York 10007·1312
.
11

t> ~

Re:

w,

<.,...e-

0 ("

V"'-

CICQ. (';,.

h9- ~
{7,/h

I

-,<-d

~~ &u \

d

"'s CO v

0

Anwarv.FairfieldGreenwich ~ (~S~~d CL-~
N.. O..0. 9-cv-118 (S.D.N.Y.)
.
~
+- 6<::...- <{vJ~d
St;glJiard Chartered Cases ~
'G:7V\AS ~ ~ ~ ZL-<="

Dear Judge Maas:

No .

III:S .

~i<-<-,. , U-"lM~ 1/

I am counsel for the Maridom Plaintiffs and am writing as Liaison
Counsel for the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs Steering Committee.

'&'/1//..3

This letter concerns the Stipulation Concerning Expert Discovery, DE
1115 (Apr. 22, 2013). The caption of this Stipulation stated that it applied to
"All Actions," and the Stipulation, as ordered by this Court, was apparently
entered into all companion cases. See, e.g., Case No. 10-cv-920 (Maridom), DE
175. Nevertheless, the Stipulation should not be applied to any of the
Standard Chartered Cases because none of the parties in the Standard
Chartered Cases signed the Stipulation (or, to our knowledge, were even
approached about the Stipulation before it was signed or filed).
Therefore, the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs Steering Committee
request that this Court take such action as is necessary to indicate that the
StipUlation and order in question do not apply to or govern proceedings in the
Standard Chartered Cases. 1

This would be in accord not only with the fact that none of the parties in the
Standard Chartered Cases signed the Stipulation but also with the fact that, since the
outset, the Standard Chartered Cases, although consolidated with Anwar', have opel'ated
under completely different procedural regimens: the Standard Chartered Cases have their
own pretrial order and confidentiality order, and the Court has appointed a Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee in the Standard ChaTtered Cases.

200 S. BISCAYNE BOUlEVARD, SIT. 1930 • MIAMI, flORIDA 33131

WWW.THEBRODSKYLAWrlRM.COJ\'1

786-220-3328' RBRODSK Y@TlllBR005KYLA\'\'FlR;\l.COM

~,

GV '-"\

From: Richard E. Brodsky

Fax: (888) 391·5819

To: Frank Maas

Fax: [phone]·6724

Page 3 of 3 4123/2013 5:34

Hon. Frank Maas
April 23, 2013
Page 2
\Ve further inform the Court that, while the Standard Chartered
Defendants have informed the undersigned by email that "[w]e agree that the
parties in the Standard Chartered Cases are not bound by a stipulation that
they did not sign," the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs and the Standard
Chartered Defendants have differing views as to whether the Stipulation is
substantively appropriate. The Plaintiffs believe that the appropriate
standard is that established for discovery generally. See, e.g., Herrick Co.,
Inc. v. Vetta Sports, Inc., No. 94 CIV. 0905(RPP), 1998 WL 637468, at *3
(S.D.N.y'Sept, 17, 1998) ("The scope of further discovel'y beyond the
mandatory disclosure of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) is governed by Rule 26(b)(1), which
permits broad discovery of information that 'appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)."). The
Standard Chartered Defendants have informed us that they believe that the
standard outlined in the Stipulation, which is far narrower, is appropriate.

The Standard Chartered Plaintiffs inform the Court that, shortly, they
will very likely be bringing to the Court for its determination specific
disputes arising from the objections posed by the Standard Chartered
Defendants' experts to the scope of the document subpoena sel'ved on those
experts by the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs. This will give both parties in
the Standard Chartered Cases the opportunity to argue before the COlll't
concerning the appropriate standards governing the scope of expert
discovery.
Sincerely yom's,

cc:

Counsel for Standard Chartered Defendants
Members of Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee