Vega v. HSBC Securities USA et al

Filing 262

ORDER re: 258 Letter filed by Richard Stryker. Accordingly, no need exists to delay this action because of the contemplated malpractice action. The Court is mindful that the matter of the retaining lien asserted by the plaintiff's pr ior counsel remains to be resolved. The hearing scheduled previously by the Court to dispose of that matter was adjourned sine die, due to the plaintiff's inpatient status at a mental health facility. The Court will reschedule the hearing a s soon as possible and advise the relevant parties of the hearing date through a separate order. The hearing will be held remotely. With respect to the plaintiff's request to alter the date for making motions in limine, that request should be addressed to the judicial officer who will resolve any motions in limine made by the parties. This order resolves the matters raised in Docket Entry No. 258. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 12/2/2020) (va)

Case 1:16-cv-09424-JGK Document 262 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
:
RICHARD STRYKER,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
-against:
:
HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC, HSBC
BANK USA, N.A., ANDREW IRELAND,
:
:
DANIEL ANNIELLO, SHALINI GUGLANI
:
and PETER FOGLIO,
:
:
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------X
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER
16 CV 9424 (JGK) (KNF)

The plaintiff filed a letter on November 24, 2020, Docket Entry No. 258, requesting that the
Court: 1) order the defendants to provide him with deposition errata sheets; 2) order the defendants to
“produce proof both errata sheets and medical records were produced to [his] former counsel”; 3)
provide him time to retain counsel to initiate a malpractice action against his former counsel and, “[i]f the
matter cannot be resolved by January 4th 2021... order a hearing on the retaining lien”; 4) grant him leave
to amend the parties’ joint pretrial order, “once the aforementioned documents are obtained”; and 5)
allow him “until Wednesday December, 16th to file his Motions in Limine.” The plaintiff also indicated
that on November 9, 2020, he served subpoenas on seven of his mental health providers requesting
that they supply records to him by December 11, 2020.
The defendants responded to the plaintiff’s letter, via a letter dated November 25, 2020,
Docket Entry No. 259, attached to which are the errata sheets sought by the plaintiff and proof that
the defendants supplied the plaintiff’s former counsel with medical records pertinent to the plaintiff
that were discussed during a conference the Court held with the parties on November 5, 2020. The
defendants urge the Court to deny: i) the plaintiff’s request to delay the progress of this action to
enable him to engage counsel to prosecute a malpractice action against his former counsel; and ii) the
plaintiff’s request to amend the parties’ joint pretrial order, since they have now given him the
documents he purported to need to enable the joint pretrial order to be completed. With respect to

Case 1:16-cv-09424-JGK Document 262 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 3

the plaintiff’s request to alter the date for filing motions in limine, the defendants maintain that,
during the November 5, 2020 conference, the Court directed the plaintiff to raise the matter with the
assigned district judge, to whom all such motion will be presented. In addition, the defendants assert
that, inasmuch as the time for pretrial discovery activities has concluded, the November 9, 2020
subpoenas issued by the plaintiff to his mental health providers are improper, and seek documents
that are not relevant to the issues that remain to be tried in this action.
The plaintiff file another letter with the court on November 30, 2020, Docket Entry No. 259.
According to that letter, the issues he raised respecting the errata sheets, the medical records that
were sent to his former counsel and the preparation of the parties’ joint pretrial order have been
resolved. Therefore, the Court will address the plaintiff’s request to delay this action to permit him
to retain counsel to prosecute a malpractice action against his former counsel and his request to alter
the time for filing motions in limine.
The plaintiff’s request to delay this action to enable him to retain counsel to prosecute a
malpractice action against his former counsel, is denied. The plaintiff has always been free, since his
former counsel ceased to represent him in 2019, to commence a malpractice action. Such an action
will address issues that are not the issues that remain to be tried in this action. Accordingly, no need
exists to delay this action because of the contemplated malpractice action. The Court is mindful that
the matter of the retaining lien asserted by the plaintiff’s prior counsel remains to be resolved. The
hearing scheduled previously by the Court to dispose of that matter was adjourned sine die, due to
the plaintiff’s inpatient status at a mental health facility. The Court will reschedule the hearing as
soon as possible and advise the relevant parties of the hearing date through a separate order. The
hearing will be held remotely. With respect to the plaintiff’s request to alter the date for making
motions in limine, that request should be addressed to the judicial officer who will resolve any
motions in limine made by the parties.

2

Case 1:16-cv-09424-JGK Document 262 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 3

This order resolves the matters raised in Docket Entry No. 258.
SO ORDERED:

Dated: New York, New York
December 2, 2020

3