Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1443

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Robert A. Wallner dated 11/5/2015 re: We respectfully request that the Court schedule a pre-motion conference so that we may further address this matter. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are directed to respond by 11-10-15, by letter not to exceed three (3) pages, to the matter set forth above by Successor Trustee, showing cause why the relief requested should not be granted. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 11/6/2015) (lmb)

Download PDF
NEW YORK LOS ANGELES DETROIT Robe1t A. Wallner Direct Dial: 212-946-9335 Novermber S, 2015 VIA FAX The Honorable Victor Marrero United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 09-118 (VM) Dear Judge Marrero: We represent non-party New Greenwich Litigation Trustee, LLC, as Successor Trustee ("Trustee") of the Greenwich Sentry and Greenwich Sentry Partners Litigation Trusts. 1 We write pursuant to Your Honor's local rules to request a pre-motion conference to address the Trustee's contemplated motion to intervene for the limited purpose of obtaining documents filed under seal by the plaintiffs and the PwC defendants in connection with their motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 1437, 1438; see Dkt. No. 1440). 2 The sealing of the documents is unwarranted, given the strong presumption of public access to judicial documents. See Lugosch v. Pyramid <:;o. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)~ Doe v. Ashcroft, 317 F. Supp. 2d 488, 492 (S.D.N. Y. 2004) (Marrero, J.) (in case implicating national security concerns, noting Government's burden to show "the specific and compelling reasons" for "each particular redaction," citing "exacting First Amendment standards"); United States v. Martoma, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182959, at * 10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2013 (denying motion to seal in limine papers filed in criminal case, explaining: "a qualified First Amendment right of access extends 'to a pretrial hearing on a ... motion to preclude the use of certain evidence at trial,' as well as to ' [w]ritten documents filed in connection with pretrial motions.'") (ellipsis and brackets in original) (quoting In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 1987)), appeal dismissed, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 601 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2014). 1 Lawsuits on behalf of the trusts are pending in New York state court against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants, N.V. (collectively, "PwC"), Citco Fund Services (Europe) BV, and Citco (Canada) Inc. Appeals from the supreme court's grant of motions to dismiss the complaints are being briefed in the First Department. 2 PwC's motion -- styled an "omnibus" motion -- does not even disclose what relief is requested. One Pennsylvania Plaza · New York, NY 10119 · T 212.594.5300 · F 212.868.1229 · The Honorable Victor Marrero November 5, 2015 Page 2 The presumption is especially compelling here, given that, inter alia, the Court has denied PwC's summary judgment motion on the issue of negligence (Dkt. No. 1430), and defendants themselves have emphasized "the broad public interest in the Madoff matter." Defendants' Letter to Hon. Frank Maas, dated August 19, 2013, at Exhibit A, p. 6 (Dkt. No. 1378, at p. 40 of 53). Even if the papers contain information designated as "Confidential" under the Second Amended Stipulation and Order Governing Confidentiality of Discovery Material ("Order") (Dkt. No. 591), that fact would not satisfy the parties' burden of overcoming the presumption. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125-26. Indeed, the Order (at ~ 9) contemplates challenges to confidentiality designations and provides that, in the event of a challenge, the party seeking confidential treatment bears "the burden of demonstrating that the designated material should be protected under ... the applicable law." Because the events at issue occurred so many years ago, it would be especially difficult for the parties to meet that burden. See In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liability Litig., 104 F.R.D. 559, 575 (E.D.N. Y. 1985), aff'd, 821 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1987). We respectfully request that the Court schedule a pre-motion conference so that we may further address this matter. ~ully, Robert A·~ cc (via email): David A. Barrett, Esq. Sarah L. Cave, Esq. Timothy A. Duffy, Esq. Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Andrew G. Gordon, Esq. Victor E. Stewart, Esq. 7Z>- ~.s ar-e_ directed to rz~pond by llC/RZ by letter not to exceed~ 5. ( ~) page~ set forth above by <;IA.<~ , showing cause why the relief requested should not be granted. SO ORDERED. l(~-tf DATE Mlrs~RG LLP

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?