Dardashtian et al v. Gitman et al

Filing 172

ORDER: that matters raised in defendants' July 10, 2020 Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (Dkt. 163, 163-1, 163-2, 163-3, 163-4) and plaintiffs' Cross Motion (Dkt. 167, 167-1, 167-2, 167-3, 167-4, 167-5, 167-6) that have not recen tly been disposed of, are disposed as follows: 1. Defendants' request for "reversal of the Magistrate Judge's order and permitting the use of the Rebuttal Expert Report and expert" (Dkt 163) is denied. Magistrate Judge Lehrburger is performing admirably, under challenging conditions, in managing the general pretrial matters in this case. His July 3, 2020 Order, like his similar one on June 8, was well within his jurisdiction, was not an error of fact or law, and will not be disturbed. Judge Lehrburger's orders were not in limine or otherwise made in connection with the trial, and Mr. Kuczmarski' s Report gives warning that its contents may be used effectively in cross-examination at trial. 2. Plaintiffs' request for counsel fees and expenses incurred in opposing defendants' Objection is denied. 3. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions, primarily based on defendants' claimed "direct violation of the DiscoveryConfidentiality Order by Consent entered September 11, 2019" is denied. The protection of confidential treatment, between parties engaged in discovery, has no effect on items submitted to a court to inform and affect a judicial determination. The considerations are enti rely different. The public has littleconcern with private arrangements between litigants to obtain and use matter sensitive to the parties in a non-public way. The public has a powerful and highly principled right to be informed for the basis for cou rt judgments, as part of open court processes. A dispute brought to court is disclosed and determined publicly, as a matter of high policy. If the court is to decide a question of valuation, the evidence of the asset's worth is publicly disclosed as part of the process. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 7/17/2020) (ml)

Case
C 1RIGI N 1:17-cv-04327-LLS-RWL
L

Document 172 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 2
· t:SDC SONY

I'

DOCU'.\1ENT
ELECTRO~ICALLY FILED

UNITED STATES DIS TRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- -x

DOC#:
DATEF-Il_E_D_:

_Q_f_?./.i_o
J_ . _
-----------

MICHAEL DARDASHTIAN , et al.,
Plaintiffs ,

17 Civ . 4327

- against -

(LLS)

ORDER

DAVID GITMAN , et al .,
Defendants .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Matters raised in defendants '

July 10 , 2020 Objection to

Magistrate Judge's Order (Dkt . 163 , 163-1 , 163-2, 163 - 3 , 163-4)
and plaintiffs '

Cross Motion (Dkt . 167 , 167-1 , 167-2 , 167 - 3 ,

167 - 4 , 167-5 , 167 - 6)

that have not recently been disposed of ,

are disposed as follows :
1 . Defendants'

request for "reversal of the Magistrate

Judge's order and permitting the use of the Rebuttal Expert
Report and expert "

(Dkt 163) is denied. Magistrate Judge

Lehrburger is performing admirably , under challenging
conditions , in managing the general pretrial matters in this
case . His July 3 , 2020 Order , like his similar one on June 8 ,
was well within his jurisdiction , was not an error of fact or
law , and will not be disturbed . Judge Lehrburger ' s orders were
not in limine or otherwise made in connection with the trial,
and Mr . Kuczmarski ' s Report gives warning that its contents may
be used effectively in cross - examination at trial.

- 1-

Case 1:17-cv-04327-LLS-RWL Document 172 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 2

2.

Plaintiffs '

request for counsel fees and expenses

incurred in opposing defendants' Objection is denied .
3. Plaintiffs '
defendants '

request for sanctions , primarily based on

claimed "direct violation of the Discovery

Confidentiality Order by Consent entered September 11 , 2019" is
denied. The protection of confidential treatment, between
parties engaged in discovery , has no effect on items submitted
to a court to inform and affect a judicial determination . The
considerations are entirely different. The public has little
concern with private arrangements between litigants to obtain
and use matter sensitive to the parties in a non - public way. The
public has a powerful and highly principled right to be informed
for the basis for court judgments , as part of open court
processes . A dispute brought to court is disclosed and
determined publicly , as a matter of high policy . If the court is
to decide a question of valuation , the evidence of the asset ' s
worth is publicly disclosed as part of the process .
So ordered .
Dated :

July 17 , 2020
New York , New York

LOUIS L . STANTON
U. S . D. J .

- 2-