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)

Download PDF
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: (312) 862-2000 Far..-simile: r312l 862-2445 (312) 862-2200 tlm.· 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

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?