From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Monterey Bay Military Hous. v. Ambac Assurance Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 2, 2022
19 Civ. 9193 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2022)

Opinion

19 Civ. 9193 (PGG)

03-02-2022

MONTERAY BAY MILITARY HOUSING LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMBAC ASSURANCE CORP, et al., Defendants.

DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ZACHARY BANNON Counsel for the Army and Air Force Scott S. Balber John J. O'Donnell HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP Attorneys for Defendants Jefferies Mortgage Finance, Inc., Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies LLC, and Jefferies Group LLC Reed Brodsky Anne Champion Amer S. Ahmed GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Dan Ray Michael B. Carlinsky Rachel E. Epstein Steven G. Madison (pro hac vice) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Ambac Assurance Corporation David L. Goldberg Brian L. Muldrew KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP Attorneys for Defendant Chetan Marfatia Michael J. Bowe Lauren Tabaksblat Seth D. Fiur BROWN RUDNICK LLP Counsel for Plaintiffs


DAMIAN WILLIAMS

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

ZACHARY BANNON

Counsel for the Army and Air Force

Scott S. Balber

John J. O'Donnell

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS NEW YORK LLP

Attorneys for Defendants Jefferies Mortgage Finance, Inc., Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies LLC, and Jefferies Group LLC

Reed Brodsky

Anne Champion

Amer S. Ahmed

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Dan Ray

Michael B. Carlinsky

Rachel E. Epstein

Steven G. Madison (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Ambac Assurance Corporation

David L. Goldberg

Brian L. Muldrew

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Chetan Marfatia

Michael J. Bowe

Lauren Tabaksblat

Seth D. Fiur

BROWN RUDNICK LLP

Counsel for Plaintiffs

SECOND AMENDMENT TO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR STANDARD LITIGATION

SARAH L. CAVE, UNITED STALES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WHEREAS, the parties to this litigation entered, and the Court approved, a Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation on April 12, 2018, see Dkt. No. 135;

WHEREAS, the parties amended that protective order, and the Court approved that amendment, by entering a First Amendment to the Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation on December 2, 2021, see Dkt. No. 375 (together with the original Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation, the “Protective Order”);

WHEREAS, the United States Department of the Army (the “Army”), the United States Department of the Air Force (the “Air Force”), and Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Inc. (“JLL”)- a contractor for the Army and the Air Force-are in receipt of several subpoenas and document requests issued by parties to this litigation seeking documents owned or controlled by the Army or the Air Force and reasonably anticipate that they may receive additional requests in the future (the “Armed Forces Requests”);

WHEREAS, the Protective Order affords additional protections to “Parties” (as defined in the Protective Order) seeking to enforce the Protective Order compared to the protections afforded to “Non-Parties” (as defined in the Protective Order), see, e.g., Dkt. No. 135 ¶ 12.2 (providing “[a]ny Party” the right to “seek leave to reopen the case to enforce the provisions of” the Protective Order, but not Non-Parties);

WHEREAS, the Army and the Air Force seek to ensure that they are afforded the same rights to enforce the confidentiality designations made in documents produced in response to the Armed Forces Requests as would be afforded to a Party as defined in the Protective Order;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties, the Army, and the Air Force as follows:

1. The Army and the Air Force shall have the same rights to enforce the terms of the Protective Order as are afforded to Parties, as that term is defined in paragraph 2.11 of the Protective Order, with respect to documents produced by JLL, the Army, or the Air Force in response to the Armed Forces Requests, including any right to seek judicial enforcement of the Protective Order.

SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Monterey Bay Military Hous. v. Ambac Assurance Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 2, 2022
19 Civ. 9193 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2022)
Case details for

Monterey Bay Military Hous. v. Ambac Assurance Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MONTERAY BAY MILITARY HOUSING LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMBAC ASSURANCE…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 2, 2022

Citations

19 Civ. 9193 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2022)