Kriss et al v. BayRock Group LLC et al

Filing 126

OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 97 Report and Recommendations: Almost five years after this case was first filed, and despite over one hundred entries on the docket, there has been virtually no progress. No complaint ha s been docketed publicly. No defendant other than Bayrock has been served. Therefore, even as a matter of case administration, quite apart from sanctions, the remedy recommended in the Report is appropriate to overcome this impasse and move the case forward. For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED in its entirety as the decision of the Court. Each paragraph, footnote and exhibit in the FAC to which Bayrock has objected on privilege, work product, or confidentiality grounds as listed in footnote 8 of the Report is hereby STRUCK. No later than March 30, 2015, Plaintiffs shall file on ECF and serve on all Defendants the FAC with the paragraphs, footnotes and exhibits listed in footnote 8 of the Report redacted. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 03/23/2015) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(jcs)

'll:ll7
I

Judge Buchwald

141003/008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

'

SOUTHERN 01S'l'RlCT OF Nh'WYORK
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
500 PEARL STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1312
NAOMI.REICE BUCHWALO
UNITED .STATES nt.~'l'RICT .TUIJOB

December 16> 2010

;BY FACS!MD>B
Frederick M. Oberlander, Esq.
Law Office of Frederick M. Oberlandet
28 Sycamore Lane, Box 1870
Montauk~ NY 11954
Fax: [phone]

Re: Kriss, et a.l. v. Bayrock Group, LLC, et al.
10 Civ. 3959 (NRB)

Dear Mr. Oberlandet:

This is in response to yonr letter ofDecentber 15, 2010 which was sent without benefit of

my conversation with Judge Glasse:r who inforn1ed me that there was no reason I co1.tld not proceed
with this case. Hence my letter of November 4, :2010. Fnmldy, I would have thought that if there
was any uncertail1ty ou you:r; part about my a:utho.rity to send the letter of November 4, you wo\.tld ·
ba:ve inquired.
I am, howeverj pleased to lea111 that you are now prepared to file a new complaint omitting
ce1tain docume11ts. To avoid any further issues I would suggest that, before filit1g the new
complain.t, you submit your proposed complaint to me with specific citntion to publicly available
sources for any allegation (by paragraph) which ~11akes reference to information o:r documents
which are generally treated as sealed or privileged. 1
I have no objection to your having additional thne to submit your proposed complaint.
However, as I have previo1.1sly indicated only a proper complaint can be the predicate of subsequent
:motions, which I reiterate must be made on rule compliant formal papers.
As for your comments about letters not being filed on the docket, this is standard practice in
this District. In dee~ there is no proper way fo:r; a party to file a letter on ECF. Only letters
endorsed by the Court as orders may be filed on ECF and that filing is done by chambers.
Finally~ it should be clear that neither I 110r J~tdge Glasser have ever had any desire to

im:pede the progress of this case so long as comt orders designed to protect well established
and legitjmate interests were complied with.

V~y~-

~

~k~J

Naomi Reice Buchwald
United States District Judge
1
Further) I wish to b1;ing to your attention an article that recently appeared in United States
Law Week, titled ]l.fodel Rule 1.15: The Elegant Solution to the Problem ofPurloz'ned Documents
(Vol. 79, No. 18, at 1618).

___ ______
.

......

·~

...

-