UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Standard Chartered Bank
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-11117
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered Bank, Judge Engelmayer rejected a pre-motion conference request, allowed a disqualification motion, and set briefing deadlines.
Brutus Trading, the United States government, Assistant United States Attorney Jean-David Barnea, and the defendants were affected by the court’s ruling and briefing schedule.
What happened
In UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Brutus Trading, LLC v. Standard Chartered Bank, Brutus Trading asked for a conference before filing a motion to disqualify Assistant United States Attorney Jean-David Barnea and possibly seek appointment of an independent expert. These requests arose while the government was preparing to respond to Brutus Trading’s pending motion to vacate.
The court rejected the request for a pre-motion conference, stating that it appeared designed to delay the case. The court nevertheless allowed Brutus Trading to file the disqualification motion and adopted a briefing schedule. It also set deadlines for the government and Brutus Trading to address the potential expert motion and the motion to vacate after the disqualification motion is decided.
Judge Engelmayer issued the July 8, 2024 order. The order did not decide whether the attorney should be disqualified, whether an independent expert should be appointed, or whether the motion to vacate should be granted.
The detailed version
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Standard Chartered Bank · No. 1:18-cv-11117
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 8, 2024
Background
Brutus Trading, the company that brought the claim on behalf of the United States, sought a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to disqualify Assistant United States Attorney Jean-David Barnea and a possible motion to appoint an independent expert. The requests were made in connection with Brutus Trading’s pending motion to vacate. The order also notes that the court had already denied Brutus Trading’s earlier request to reopen the case, and that the Court of Appeals had affirmed that decision.
Court’s action
The court rejected the request for a pre-motion conference. It stated that the request and proposed disqualification motion appeared to be attempts to delay the litigation by interfering with the government’s response to the motion to vacate. The court expressed doubt that Brutus Trading could satisfy the high burden required for attorney-disqualification motions, which it described as disfavored and often used for tactical reasons. But the court did not deny the disqualification motion itself; instead, it permitted Brutus Trading to file that motion and adopted the parties’ proposed briefing schedule.
The government’s response to the disqualification motion is due July 15, 2024, and Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, is due July 22, 2024. The government’s response to the independent-expert motion will be due 14 days after the court decides the disqualification motion, with Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, due seven days later. The government’s response to the motion to vacate will be due 14 days after the court decides the independent-expert motion, with Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, due seven days later.
What the order did not decide
Judge Engelmayer’s order did not decide the proposed disqualification motion, the possible request for an independent expert, or the pending motion to vacate. It was a procedural order controlling the sequence and timing of those matters.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.