Opinion
No. C 12-03048 WHA
09-25-2012
BRIDGE PARTNERS, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK N.A., a national banking association; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a national banking association; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION HEARING;
OBJECTIONS TO EXPERT
TESTIMONY AND FOREIGN
DECLARATION
Following a hearing on July 18, 2012, the Court allowed discovery and supplemental briefing regarding plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Both defendants and plaintiff submitted supplemental briefs and reply briefs on September 7 and September 14. On reply, defendants raised objections to the declaration of Paul Schott in support of plaintiff's supplemental memorandum of points and authorities, filed September 7 (Dkt. No. 79). In particular, defendants objected to Mr. Schott's qualifications as an expert and further objected to portions of the declaration as based on "subjective belief or unsupported speculation" or relevance. Expert opinions purportedly summarizing facts or testimony of fact witnesses that opine on the ultimate questions of fact or offer legal conclusions are disfavored. See Securities and Exchange Commission v. Daifotis, No. 11-00137 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2012).
Plaintiff has not filed a response to defendants' Daubert objections to Mr. Schott. Plaintiff shall file a response to defendants' objections to expert testimony by NOON ON SEPTEMBER 26.
Plaintiff has raised objections to the declarations submitted by Dmitry O. Levin on behalf of Russian Standard Bank as failing to comport with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1746. Defendants shall file corrected declarations that comport with the requirements for foreign declarations under Section 1746(1) by NOON ON SEPTEMBER 26.
For the further hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, scheduled for September 27, the Court wishes to hear argument on the extent to which banks in the United States wire transfer funds on a debit-by-debit basis to foreign banks (in much the same way that the Fedwire system works for domestic banks) and how and with what frequency the foreign banks in question here debited their accounts held by domestic banks Chase and Citibank.
In addition, defendants should be prepared to discuss whether there was a debit to the foreign bank account(s) in question that was large enough to have covered the sum(s) in question from the date of the allegedly fraudulent wire up to and including the temporary restraining order issued on June 14, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE