Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 873

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Theodore H Katz from Gaytri D Kachroo dated 4/27/2012 re: Request for an extension of the fact discovery deadline to 9/4/2012. ENDORSEMENT: The Court expresses no view on the propriety of extending the deadline for purposes of class discovery. The issue will be addressed after Judge Marrero resolves the arbitration issue. Caso's counsel shall set forth what additional plaintiff's specific discovery she seeks and why that discovery was not accomplished within the deadline. Defendants' counsel shall respond within 3 days. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz on 5/7/2012) (cd)

-

Dr. Gaytri D. Kachroo
219 Concord Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
[e-mail]
April 27, 2012

By Facsimile

Honorable Theodore H. Katz
United States Magistrate Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse

~::~~:"!York IOOQ7

. Re:'

.J; .

.

USJ.•."

"f Jf\;'~
'.' ..

•

'1.,'1

j'
,'*
. ~~;,. ~1I.f.J'

.l'\.

. A.1TWarv~"FairfteldGreerrwii:.h Llmite8.'
.!:-;t;E::==::::::::t~~:;~tt::==:J
No. 09-CV·llS CVM) (IHK) - Standard Chartered C~es

Dear Judge Katz:
I write on behalf of Plaintiff Ricardo Rodriguez Caso jn Coso v. Standard Chartered

Bank International (Americas) Ltd, et aI., No. 1O-CV -9196, the putative class action

consolidated into the above-referenced multi..district litigation. I write to request that the Court

extend the fact WSCOVeTy deadline in the Coso case to coincide with the September 4, 2012 faot

discovery deadline in the consolidated Arrwa7 case. The ongoing discovery in the Anwar case is

relevant and neeessary to an understanding of the coll'llXlon issues shared by the putative class,

and the class would be unfairly prejudiced by the current fact discovery deadline of May 4,2012,

four months before the deadHne in Anwar. Moreover. as a consequence of recent depositions

and discovery objections. Mr. Caso anticipates the need to conduct further discovery.

Undersigned counsel, member of the Steering Conunittee. has consulted with its other members

and received no opposition to the submission of this request.

The Current DiscoXerv Schedule
On February 4. 2011. the Court created the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering

Committee (the ''Committee'') to coordinate discovery and related common issues shared by the

various individual plaintiffs in the Standard Chartered cases. The fact discovery deadline for the

Standard Chartered cases is May 4, 2012. [Doc. No. 828.]

On behalf ofmy client and the putative class. I wrote the Court in early October 2011

seeking clarification as to the discovery schedule. At the discovery conference on October 13.

2011, the Court directed the parties to meet·and..confer on a class action discovery sohedule.
Another member oftha Committee indicated that undersigned counsel would be speaking on
behalfof all class issues. On November ·17, 2011, the Standard Chartered Defendants sought
clarification and the Court confinned that discovery in the Caso case is on a separate but parallel
track, noting that "the Court expects that class discovery will be coordinated with general
discovery." [Doc. No. 759.)
Counsel for the putative class bas been making every attempt to coordinate class action
discovery with general discovery. However, Defendants have been unwilling to discuss a class
discovery schedule and have yet to produce any class discovery while their request to compel
arbitration of Mr. Caso's claims remains pending. Despite Defendants' resista.nce~ undetSigned
counsel has continued to try and move class discovery forward. On February 10, 2012, Mr. Caso
served interrogatories and requests for production on Defendants. On February 14,2012, upon
lack of response to Mr. Caso's counter-proposal for a class discovery schedule, undersigned
counsel submitted a proposed discovery schedule to the Court. On March 12.2012, Defendants
objected to the class discovery requests, claiming, inter alia, that no class discovery should occur
until the Court has ruled on the arbitration issue. Mr. Caso will be filin,g a motion to compel
these discovery responses.
The Need for a DiscoVery Extension in Cgso

Although counsel for MI:.. Caso~J?een involv~m'tMae.Ilmt disc()vc;ry QPgomg.Dy ~ ...
the Committee, theCaso case pIesents unique issues of fact and law not present in the individual
plaintiffs' cases. Indeed, in order to certify the class. Mr. Caso must show the existence of a set
of common factual and legal issues !lbated by the putative class.

The Ongoing Anwar Discovery
The depositions and document discovery in Anwar have raised and will continue to raise
facts relevant to the common issues ofthe putative class, and the fact discovery in this parallel
action will continue to inform the Caso case. The discovery period f()r Mr. Caso and the
Standard Chartered putative class should not end prior to the discovery period in Anwar.
Indeed, counsel for:Mr. Caso has been participating in depositions in the Anwlll' case and
uncovering infonnation relevant to the Standard Chartered class action. By way of example
only, the depositions of Philip Toub and Santiago Reyes, employees ofFaitfield, were directly
relevant to the claims ofthe putative class that the Defendant Standard Chartered fIkIa American
Express's due diligence on Fairfield was insufficient. Certainly, if Fairfield employees
apparently did not conduct basic due diligence on its own behalf regarding their investment in
the Madoff Ponzi scheme, then the Defendants could not have conducted similar due diligence,
an issue that is oritical to the Caso class action.
Additional Fact Discovery in Caso .
As a consequence of evidence obtained in recent depositions, counsel believes she will
likely have to depose other witnesses on behalf of Mr. Caso and the putative class. Indeed, fact
witnesses recently deposed identified several people likely to have relevant information on key
issues, including red flags identified by others who reviewed Fairfield Sentry's performance.

2

The American Express Conmany DisQoym Objections
The American Express Company recently objected to a deposition of its corporate
representative based on the scope of the topics of examination on the subpoena. The Committee
had been negotiating with American Express Company in an effort to agree on a more limited
deposition. Those negotiations failed and the Committee effectively withdrew the subpoena.
Mr. Caso intends on re-subpoenaing American Express Company requesting a deposition on
more limited topics. To date, Mr. Caso has received very little information from American
Express Company regarding the sale of its subsidiaries to the Defendant. These subsidiaries
previously included the private banking ann that invested in Fairfield Sentry. Mr. Caso and the
putative class are entitled to discovery regarding certain significant issues, including the decision
to seH the Fairfield portfolio to the Defendant. how that sale was valued. and the risk assessment
made in selling the Fairfield portfolio.

For all ofthese reasons, Mr. Caso respectfully requests that the Court grant an extension
of time to September 4, 2012 to conduct fact discovery in the Caso case.

Respectfully submitted.,

L., ts-l;.r..JIZ-L­

~K.aChtOO
co:

Sharon Nelles. Esq. (bye-mail)
Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (bye-mail)

L/ SOORDERE
3 '-f/ ~/;J- ~
,