Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1406

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Timothy A. Duffy dated 8/26/2015 re: I write on behalf of my client, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC Canada"), and defendant (PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. ("PwC Netherlands") (collectively, the "PwC Defendants"), to seek a modification of the schedule endorsed by the Court on April 22, 2015. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record of this action the letter above submitted to the Court by the parties. The revised schedule is approved., ( Motions due by 10/1/2015.) (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 8/28/2015) (lmb)

08/26/2015

10:10

PAGE

f<IRKLArJD&ELLIS LLP

039

KIRKLAND &. ELLIS LLP

02/04

OR\G\NAL

AND AHIL/ATW rAJt.TNEll.SHIPS

300 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, lll1noi5 60654

Tinlothy A. Duffy, PC.
To Call Writer Directly:

[phone]

Far..-simile:

r312l 862-2445

[phone]

tlm.·[e-mail]

www.klrklend com

August 26, 2015

YIAFAX
Judge Victor Marrero

Tfnited Sta.tes District Court
~·outhem

District of New York

:;oo Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007

Re:

Anwar, et al v. Fairfield G1·eenwich Limited, et al.
Master File No. 09-CV-OO 118 (VM) (THK)

I iear Judge Marrero:
I write on behalf of my client, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC Canada''), and
d~fendant

(PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N. V. ("PwC Netherlands") (collectiYely, the
wC Defendants"), to seek a mouifkation of the schedule endorsed by the Court on April 22,
2 )J 5.

"

0

As the Court will recall from the conference it held with the parties on April 14, 2015, the
schedule was endorsed by the Court on the assullnption that the PwC Defendants' petition
p·1rsuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil :Procedure seeking review of the Court's
J\tarch 3, 2015 order re-certifying the plaintiff class would be ruled upon by the Second Circuit
p ·ior to September 1, 2015. The petition remains pending.

C ·llTent
1

1

As the Court acknowledged while the PwC Defendants prior 23(f) petition wa.s pending
\\ ith the Second Circuit, it would be inappropriate and inefficient to require the parties to file
xr·otions for summary judgment absent certainty as to whether the plaintiffs are pursuing
ir• dividual or class claims, and the same holds true of course, in spades, for the other pre-trial
fi ~ings and trial itself.
The PwC Defendants propose, and plaintiffs do not object, that the current schedule be
a1 iju.."ited so as to avoid the expenditure of time and resources by the parties in the event the
pr 1tition is granted. If the petition is denied prior to September 24, the following proposed
schedule would still allow for triaJ to commence on Jnnuary 4, 2016 as currently planned. The
P·ivC Defendants re.serve the right to seek a further modification of the schedule should the
p1.'tition remain pending.
Plaintiffs reserve u.11 their rights with respect to any further
Hong Kom

London

Los Angeles

Munich

New York

Palo Alto

San Francisco

Shanghai

Washington, DC.

08/26/2015

10:10

039

KIRKLAND8ELLIS LLP

PA6E

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

August 26, 2015

J'age 2

11odification of the schedule and in particular any delay of the trial. Plaintiffs believe that the
I'latters raised in the previous paragraph should be addressed in light Of all circumstances,
hcluding completion of discoYery last year, the Court's recent SLUSA ruling and the time that
l'le parties have had since April to prepare for trial.
The proposed schedule modifies only the first four dates set forth below. Beginning with
t,1e November 2, 2015 deadline, the schedule remains unchanged:
•

September 24, 2015: Plaintiffs provide defendants with draft pre-trial submissions,
including designations of depositions. 1

•

October 1, 2015: Parties to file any summary judgment motions by this date, or a
party may deter, without prejudice, the filing of its summary judgment motion (or
Rule 50 motion) until the close of the opposing parties' case-in-chief. Under either
procedure, no response to any such motions sliall be filed pending further instruction
of the Court. Defendants object to the foregoi!ng procedure, and reserve the right to
seek reconsideration.

•

October 1, 2015: Parties to file any Daubert motions, with responses due 30 days
thereafter and repUes 15 days thereafter.

•

October 8, 2015: Defendants provide plaintiffs with draft pre-trial submissions,
including designations of depositions.

•

November 2, 2015: Parties to file final pre-trial joint submissions in accordance with
Court's standing trial procedures, together with objections to designated deposition
testimony. Parties to file motions in limine, 'vith responses due 14 days thereafter and
replies 7 days thereafter.

•

December 1, 2015: Case ready for Final Pre- I rial Conference.

•

January 4, 2015: Jury trial of 6 weeks commences. Plaintiffs believe the trial can be
concluded in 4-6 weeks. Defendants believe the trial will require 8-12 weeks.

If necessary, the parties are available to discuss the foregoing at the Court's convenience.
1

fhe Court's standing Trial Procedures shall govern the parties' pre-trial submissions.

83/04

08/26/2015

10:10

f<IRKLAND&ELLIS LLP

039

PAGE

04/04

KIRKLAND &.. ELLIS LLP

. '1,.ugust 26, 2015

!'age 3

i:~. ~I Pt/~
Timothy A. Duffy, P.C.

<c:

Counsel of Record (via e/mail)

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record
of this action th letter above submitted to the Court by

~~

"' ,.s: •

TLt r..e rt".s:.ed's: c