Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 915

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas from Richard E. Brodsky dated 8/13/2012 re: The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court amend the Order by adding the following: "4. By September 14, 2012, the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs shall submit a reply letter. The Plaintiffs also request that the same procedure be employed if the Defendants seek de-designation of any of the Plaintiffs' documents. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas on 8/14/2012) (lmb)

Frorr;: Richard

E. Brodsky

Fax: [phone]

To: Hon Frank Maas

Fax: [phone]

Page 2 of 4 8/13/20126:39

RICHARD E. BRODSKY .A1TOltNEY ATLAW

USDCSDNY

VIA Fi\X TRANSMISSION
August 1:3,2012

Hon, Frank Maas
United States MagistrateJudge
Daniel Patl'ick1VIoynihan United Stq.tesCourthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1;312
Re:

Anwal' v.Fairfield Greenwich
No.09-cv-118(S.D.N.Y.)

Staudard GhartHredGases

DOCUJviEl\11f '
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

DOC,#:

,DATE FILED~ ";gilt.{ I t~ ,

r~EMO .ENDORSED
6l\L .?l~GL3

Dear J udgeMaaB;
.

,

I am counsel for the1VJaridom Plaintiffs and am writing as LiaisQn
Counsel fol' the Stand;:lxd Chart(;redPlaintiffs SteeringCOIlJ.mittee,l "
.

.

.

~.

'.

.

The purposeofthisletter isto request amodif.ication, to w-hichthe
Standard Chartered Defendantshave agreed, to JheOrdereutereg August 9,
2012 by Yom" Honor following thet~lephone~~Qnferenc~held9nAugust 8; .
2012. The Onlerest~blish(~sthe procedures forthe .• Plairitiffs' challenges to
the Standard Chartel'edDefenO.ant$'desiglliOltion as'~cOJlfiden#~H~'a.ir
documellts they produced and ofall depositions tak<Hl qfformerStandard
Chartered employees. .
'
'rhe Order provides that if theparties canno'~agree,thePlaintiffswill '
submit a letter to Your Honor, followed by a letter froIIl the Defe'l1dants. Even
though t4e Defendantsi:lear the burden ofproving,astoeachchallel'lged
designation, that (~onfiden,tial tl'eatmentis appropriah~, thel'e isnoprovi!;liol1
in the Ol'del' for the Plaintiffrs to reply to the Defendallts' "oppositiolllett;el'." .

The Steering' Comm,ittee was appointed by then Mag,istrat,e,Judg,e,>
Katz. Itsduties are to cOOl'dinate dit;"~QYf;;~yund.) , S,,?'r)."':>' ",1,
""'1:>""~,,,,,,,,,,t1.:h,,
common intel'eets of the various plaintiffs suing Standard Chartered
concerning Ji'airfield Sentl'y-1vladoff. StipulationandO:rdel' Apppinting
Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering COlUlnittee (DE H02,' Feb. 4...2011).

\VWVv .rl n:BH(lD';K )'J\WTIH7'LCO.vl

I ·",\'IIRM.,COM

From: Richford E. Brodsky

Fax: [phone]

To: Hon. Frank Maas

Fax: [phone]

Page 3 of 4 8/13/20126:39

Hon. Frank lVIaas
August 13, 2012
Page 2
The Plaintiffs respectfully request that Your Honor amend theOrder
because they believe that this procedure will not permit a full ail'jngofthe
pHrtinent issues. In particular, the Plaintiffs request that YourHonor amend
the Order by adding a new paragraph4: "<1. By September 14, 2012, the
Standard Chartered Plaintiffs shall submit a replyletter."2
In support of this request, the Plaintiffs bring the following to the
Court's attention.
.
Pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation and Order (DE 603)
entered on February 4, 201t·in.the case of a challenge to the designarionof
Discovery Material as "confidentiaL" the Defendants, as the DesigIlating .
Party, "have the burden of demonstrating t.hatthe designatedmate;r.ial
should be protected under the terms of this Stipulation and Order and
applicable law.". Dl~603, " 9. The al1oc~;ttion of the burdOl1 to the party .
designating documents p~lrsuant to an omnibl;ls confidentiality order i8in'
accord with thecase law gc>v0rnill g de·designati()n of{locmnentsun<fel' an
umbrella confidentiality ardel' the sort involved here.B.g., Kochv. .
Greenberg, No.07CIV. 9600 BS~J nF, 2012 WL 14491a6(S~n.N.Y.Apr.13, .
2012); King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., No.04~CV~5540DGT,·
2010 WL 3924689 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28,2010); lnre ParmalatBe(:.Litig.,258
F.R.D. 2:36, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 20(9); Campo 1I. Am. Corrective CounseUrig'
Serv':ces, Inc., C 01-21151 J\V (PVT), 2008vVL 2811968 (N.D~ CaL July 21, .
2008).

of

.

.

.

It is consistent with the apportionment ofthehllrden to the .'
Designating Party (ill this instance, the Defendants) that the:plain.tiffs}m
permitted a response to the arguments made by the Defendautsastowhy
their designations should stand.' The procedure establishedinthe()rder ~ .
would be appropriat;e were the burden of proof on the party challenging the
designation, btit it is respectfully submitted that is in the nature ofthe
anocation of the hurden to the Defendants that the Defendantsfirstbe
required to submit why the designations should beuphQld andthenthe
Plaintiffs be permitted to respond. Otherwise, there will be nQopportunityfor
the Plaintiffs to challenge the assertions and arguments advanced by the .
Defendants, thereby affording the Court with less thttn a full airing ofthe
issues.

a

The Plaintiff;,; would aloo ",u.g!;cot,lhut, if the

I>e£~~""d""\.:,.,,~,.,.ecc1,,,.h'<l-,,~

designate any of the Plaintiffs' documents, the samo procedure wol.lldho
employed -~ letter fI'Om Ptuty seeking de-designation, response letter from
designating party, reply letter from "de-designating party,"

From: Rich",~d~. Brodsky

Fax: [phone]

To: Hon. Frank Maas

Page 4 of 4 8/13/2012 639

Fax: [phone]

Hon. Frank Maas
August 13, 2012
Page 3
Such a procedure would be in accordance with l{)gic,fail'nessand due
process. The Supreme Court long ago held that H[t;]he right to a hearing
embraces not only the right to present (widence, but also a reasonable
opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party andto meetthern.The
right to submjt argument implies that opportunity; othf~J:'wise theright may
be but a harren one." 1}iorg(ln v. United States, 804 U.s. 1, 18 (1938)
(reversing order of Department of Agriculture fixing maximl,.lm rates to be
charged by market agencies at the Kansas City Stockyards whel'eSecretary
of Agriculture where party affected by rulemaking wen~ deniedopportunity
for "full hearing" required by statute) (emphasisadded).While':Aforgan dealt
with an administrative proceeding, the CQurt made it clear thilt the
Congress, in requiring a "full,bearing," "had regard to judicialst.andards~not
in any technical sense, hut with l'espect to those fUlldamentall'eqtiiremep.ts of
fairness which are of the essence of due praceSB, in a proceeding ora judicial
nature." Id., at 19 (emphasis added).
'
,

In other cases dealing with a challenge to one party'sdesignationof .
documents as "confidential" inthe context of an omnibusconiidentialityof
the nature of the order in this case, DE 603, courts have affordedthepl1l'ty
challenging the c(mfidentialitY,designation theopportu,nityto .respondt:o the
arguments advancedhy the "designating party." E.g~,Koch v,Greenberg,
supra; King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, l'[Lc., supra; In reParrnalat
Sec. Litig., supra; Campo v. Am. Corrective COllnseZingServices,lnc.,supra~
~

.

' .

' .

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs respectfully requestthJ3t thisCoul,:ta:merid
the Order by adding the following: "4. By SeptelllherI4,2012,theStandard
Chartered Plaintiffsf,;hall supmit a reply letter. ThePlaintif£" also request
that the ~ame procedure beelllployed if the Defendants seek de.designation
of any of the Plaintiffs' documents.
"
Thank you for yourcareful consideration of this letter_
Sincerely yours,

Plr

1ltJ))J

Richard.E. Brodsky
ce:

Bradley Smith, Esq., counsel for Defendants
Members of Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee