From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krys v. Aaron (In re Refco Sec. Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Sep 30, 2011
07 MDL 1902 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2011)

Opinion

07 MDL 1902 (JSR) 08 Civ. 7416 (JSR)

09-30-2011

In re: REFCO SECURITIES LITIGATION KENNETH M. KRYS and CHRISTOPHER STRIDE, as JOINT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS of SPHINX LTD., et al. Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT AARON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER


ORDER RELATED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 DISCOVERY

CONFERENCE REGARDING THE DPM DEFENDANTS' SUBPOENAS

TO CHRISTOPHER ALIPRANDI AND PATRICK MCMAHON

This matter having been opened to the Court by DLA Piper LLP (US), attorneys for the DPM Defendants in connection with subpoenas served upon Christopher Aliprandi and Patrick McMahon, on or about June 9, 2010, and July 15, 2010, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45; and the Court having conducted a conference with Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, counsel for non-party individuals Aliprandi and McMahon, DLA Piper LLP (US), counsel for the DPM Defendants, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel for defendants Mark Kavanagh and Brian Owens, Beus Gilbert PLLC and Brown Rudnick LLP, counsel for plaintiffs, on September 14, 2011; and good cause appearing;

IT IS on this 30 day of September, 2011

ORDERED that:

A) Counsel, having met and conferred regarding the use of terms to search the sample set of data ordered on March 1, 2011, as well as the remaining unprocessed data, will continue to meet and confer to confirm that the scope of the Protective Order in this matter, with provisions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), is broad enough to encompass the document production of non-parties Aliprandi and McMahon, and, if necessary, counsel are to agree on a separate protective order applicable to the document production of non-parties Aliprandi and McMahon;

B) Despite disagreement regarding which party should bear the costs of discovery relating to the document production of non-parties Aliprandi and McMahon, without waiver of their right to submit an application seeking reimbursement for such costs and knowing that the DPM defendants have taken the position that they are not required to bear any such costs and will oppose any application seeking reimbursement for such costs, counsel for Aliprandi and McMahon agree that they will begin to produce documents and complete the production as soon as possible;

C) Another conference will be held on October 26, 2011, to determine the status and progress of the production.

SO ORDERED.

Hon Ronald J. Hedges

SPECIAL MASTER


Summaries of

Krys v. Aaron (In re Refco Sec. Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Sep 30, 2011
07 MDL 1902 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Krys v. Aaron (In re Refco Sec. Litig.)

Case Details

Full title:In re: REFCO SECURITIES LITIGATION KENNETH M. KRYS and CHRISTOPHER STRIDE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Sep 30, 2011

Citations

07 MDL 1902 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2011)