Wells Fargo Securities, LLC v. LJM Investment Fund, L.P. et al
Filing
183
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 176 Letter Motion for Discovery. The Court orders as follows: 1. LJM's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. WFS shall amend the Subpoena to request only (i) transcripts and exhibits from w itness interviews or depositions of WFS and LJM employees in the LJM Investigation and LJM Litigation, and (ii) presentations prepared by LJM employees and provided to the SEC in the LJM Investigation and LJM Litigation (the "Amended Subpoen a"). By December 1, 2022, WFS shall provide LJM with a copy of the Amended Subpoena for review and approval. By December 5, 2022, WFS shall serve the Amended Subpoena on the SEC. WFS shall promptly provide LJM with copies of any documents the SEC produces in response to the Amended Subpoena. On its review of those documents, LJM may, on a showing of good cause, seek leave to re-open the depositions of any WFS witnesses that were previously deposed in this matter. 2. Based on its repr esentations at the Conference, WFS's Motion is DENIED as moot. The parties shall promptly order a transcript of the Conference. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 176. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 11/29/22) (yv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
-v-
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18 Civ. 2020 (LTS) (SLC)
LJM INVESTMENT FUND, L.P. and LJM PARTNERS,
LTD,
ORDER
Defendants.
LJM INVESTMENT FUND, L.P., LJM MASTER
TRADING FUND, L.P., LJM OFFSHORE FUND, LTD.,
and PFC-LJM PRESERVATIONS AND GROWTH
FUND, L.P.,
Counterclaimants,
-vWELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC,
Counter-Defendant
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is LJM’s 1 motion (ECF No. 176 (“LJM’s Motion”)) to quash a subpoena
(the “Subpoena”) served by Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (“WFS”) on
the United States Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and WFS’s cross-motion to compel
LJM to produce certain documents (ECF No. 178 at 3 (“WFS’s Motion”)). Having reviewed the
LJM refers collectively to Defendants LJM Investment Fund, L.P. and LJM Partners, Ltd., as well as the
additional LJM entities that appear as Counterclaimants, LJM Master Trading Fund, L.P., LJM Offshore
Fund, Ltd., and PFC-LJM Preservations and Growth Fund, L.P.
1
parties’ submissions, and having heard their arguments during the discovery conference held
today, November 29, 2022 (the “Conference”), the Court orders as follows:
1. LJM’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. WFS shall amend the
Subpoena to request only (i) transcripts and exhibits from witness interviews or
depositions of WFS and LJM employees in the LJM Investigation and LJM Litigation,2
and (ii) presentations prepared by LJM employees and provided to the SEC in the LJM
Investigation and LJM Litigation (the “Amended Subpoena”). By December 1, 2022,
WFS shall provide LJM with a copy of the Amended Subpoena for review and approval.
By December 5, 2022, WFS shall serve the Amended Subpoena on the SEC. WFS shall
promptly provide LJM with copies of any documents the SEC produces in response to
the Amended Subpoena. On its review of those documents, LJM may, on a showing
of good cause, seek leave to re-open the depositions of any WFS witnesses that were
previously deposed in this matter.
2. Based on its representations at the Conference, WFS’s Motion is DENIED as moot.
The parties shall promptly order a transcript of the Conference. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to close ECF No. 176.
Dated:
New York, New York
November 29, 2022
SO ORDERED.
_________________________
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate Judge
The Court incorporates the definitions of “LJM Investigation” and “LJM Litigation” provided in the
Subpoena. (See ECF No. 176-1 at 4).
2
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?