Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1254

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas from Richard E. Brodsky dated 3/20/2014 re: We respectfully request that the Court consider rescheduling the conference to an earlier date and time. ENDORSEMENT: 1. My schedule is crowded, but a slot has opened up on Monday, 3/24/14, at 3 pm if counsel are available. 2. My intent was not to delay decision pending the filing of the public version of the letter. 3. Please let my Chambers know by 3 pm on 3/21 whether 3/24 at 3 pm suits counsel. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas on 3/20/2014) (lmb)

From: Richard .E, Brodsky

To: Frank Maas

Fax: [phone]

THE BRODSK y

Fax: [phone]

LA W

FIRM,

RICHARD

PL

E. BRODSKY,

Page 2 of 4 0312012014 11 :44

l=h~~dDNY

~

~~Nfw

ELECfRONICALLY FILED,

-If

DOC#:

MEMO ENDORSED

~)

btu

By fax to [phone]

(\Ao\.t

L __

312~'li~(~

DATE FILED:

'vi." "X'~4lJL-

March 20, 2014

I~ C-r<.:>\.uc1-~d)

slot- ~ t:.r:.- () p:'~_d ~

d~ \ ,3 / ~I <..[/

ct..- \,/

0'''-­

~VV\

J

I {­

Honorable Frank Maas
(,
/; ~
(.(.JJ(.t.A..-SL4.. L.:.J ~
( "'0
United States Magistrate Judge
- \.>1..( \<-><.- ~ ­
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.s. Courthouse
,\.A \.\ \..H L.{) L'- ~- LL> (~ LuL> \ ­
500 Pearl Street
.-L _ .J.)
'Ud>
~
New York, New York 10007.1312
\.: C<..Q.~k{ ''"\ 02<.'."{ ~ 0 "-:\~ 'V I.-l~ l~ '-- Ve/\.-b {
\.J

G

(.\\lA,

Re:

\\b

,'U

L, 0,,'- :­ b

Anwar, et al. v. Failfield Greenwich Limited, et al.,
09-cv-118 (VM) (THK)
~ l:djf", ­
Standard Chartered Cases
t(LW ,-,...L.lJ- II\.-( ' \ .Q~

eft

lM.

k--' 6

3 ~ ~ 0'\1.-- 3/)..-\ u.J l"-E.-.- ~
3/ L "-f c~r 3 1> ~.,-\ ~. \..-' \ \~ CC)uv-..~'
as the Liaison Counsel for, and on behalf of, the Standard ~L j ,
W/L.N

Dear Judge Maas:

j::-tLO

Lv

G,\

I write
Chartered Plaintiffs, in the Standard Chartered Cases.

This letter seeks clarification of (a) Your Honor's Ol'der dated March
17, 2014, D.E. 1251, directing the parties to participate in a conference call on
March 31,2014 at 4:00 PM; and (b) Your Honor's endorsement ofa letter
from opposing counsel, DE 1252, March 17, 2014, directing the parties to
consult regarding appropriately redacted versions of our March 14,2014
letter and any response by opposing counseL

March 17.2014 Order
With respect to the March 17, 2014 Order, we are unsure about the
subject matter of the conference, since none is specifically stated in the
Order. We assume that this conference call is about our March 14,2014
letter, as amended on March 17, 2014, related to the report of the BC
Defendants' new proffered expert, Bradley P. Ziff.
Assuming we are correct that the conference is about the March 14,
2014 letter - we must respectfully bring to Your Honor's attention that the
date of the scheduled conference, March 31,2014, is the very day we are
scheduled to depose Mr. Ziff.

200 S_ BISCAYNI: BOULEVARD, Sn:. 1930· MIAMI, FLOHlDA 33131

WWW.THI.BROOSKYLt\WFIRM.COM

786-220-3328 • RUROIJSK Y@lHEBRODSKYlt\wFmM.coM

I

~l "':L-;j I, J
I
_3/ J..<?/ I '-f

From: Richard,E, Brodsky

Fax: [phone]

To: Frank Maas

Fax: [phone]

Page 3 of 4 0312012014 11 :44

Honorable Frank Maas
March 20,2014
Page 2

Because of that conflict, we respectfully request that the Court
consider rescheduling the conference to an earlier date and time_ Being fully
mindful of the Court's busy schedule, we believe that, if it were possible to
schedule this conference at an earlier date and time, we could proceed to take
the Ziff deposition on schedule, armed with the knowledge of any decision
that the Court might make on our request to strike his I'eport - including
cancelling the deposition if the Court grants our request, or narrowing its
scope, if the Court chooses to narrow the scope of Mr. Ziffs report rather than
striking it.
On top of all of the SC Defendants' foot-dragging since 2009, the delay
occasioned by Mr. Zask's guilty plea in November 2013 and the extensive
delay since then in arranging for his l'eplacement to render his report support
our request for an earlier conference. The facts are that Mr_ Zask pled guilty
four months ago to a felony. More than two months ago, Your Honor issued
an order dated January 6,2014, DE 1239, permitting the SC Defendants to
substitute someone else for that expert under specified limitations. We
agreed-and the Court appeared to thank us for that agreement, DE 1240­
to the SC Defendants' insistence that we wait until March 3, 2014, long after
we understand Mr. Ziffwas engaged, to receive the substitute expert's report..
We scheduled Mr. Ziffs deposition fm March 31, 2014, to give us enough time
to prepare for the deposition. We then discovered that the SC Defendants had
provided us a report that seriously traduced the conditions set forth in DE
1239 concerning the permissible scope of the Zuf report. We have thus been
forced to expend substantial resources preparing the March 14, 2014 letter
and March 17, 2014 supplement for Your Honor's consideration-rather than,
as we would have preferred, preparing for the Ziff deposition.
All things considered, therefore, in the interests of avoiding even
further delay, we ask that, if possible, the Court hold the conference at an
earlier date and time. We will, of course, accept any schedule that the Court
deems appropriate.
March 17.2014 Endorsement
On March 17, 2014, the SC Defendants wrote this Court and asked
that our March 17, 2014 letter be kept out of the public record because it
referred to documents they stamped as "confidential" (just as they did
virtually 100% of the documents they produced). We immediately informed
the Court that, since we had the right "at any time" to contest any
confidentiality designation, we would have no objection to Your Honor's
agreeing to the SC Defendants' request. See letter dated March 17, 2014.

From: Richard

r

Brodsky

Fax: [phone]

To: Frank Maas

Fax: [phone]

Page 4 of 4 0312012014 11 :44

Honorable Frank Maas
March 20,2014
Page 3

We respectfully request clarification of Your Honor's endorsement of
the SC Defendants' request. In particular, we are uncertain as to whether the
Court intends that any action on the March 14, 2014 letter be delayed until
the parties work out the details of letters that can be made part of the public
record. If that was the Court's intention, we respectfully object and ask the
Court to reverse its position, because this would result in yet more delay for
no good reason that we can see. We have no objection to having our letter,
and any response by the SC Defendants, remain off the public record. The SC
Defendants have asked for this very result.

If, on the other hand, the Court did not intend that action on the
March 14, 2014 letter be stayed pending completion of the task ordered by
the Court, we would, of course, proceed promptly in accordance with the
Court's directive.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Sincerely yours,

cc:

Standard Chartered Defendants' Counsel
Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Counsel