Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ehrlich
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:23-cv-08962
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ehrlich, Judge Kaplan received the parties’ joint request for a 90-day stay while they pursued a settlement.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Stephen Ehrlich, the court’s case schedule, and third-party discovery subjects.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ehrlich, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Stephen Ehrlich jointly asked the court to pause the case for 90 days. They said they had reached an agreement in principle expected to resolve the matter.
The requested pause would cover discovery deadlines, hearings, summary-judgment deadlines, the pretrial order, and the September 8, 2025 trial. The parties said this would conserve resources, promote efficient court administration, and avoid burdening people outside the case who were involved in discovery.
The letter is addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and asks him to grant the stay, but the provided text does not show that the court granted or denied the request. It also does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ehrlich · No. 1:23-cv-08962
- Lewis Kaplan
- Apr. 22, 2025
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a letter from counsel for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. It requests a joint 90-day stay of the case; it does not contain a court ruling on that request.
Parties’ Request
The Commission and Stephen Ehrlich jointly asked the court to stay the matter, including all deadlines and hearings in the scheduling order. They stated that they had reached an agreement in principle late the prior week and expected to submit a consent order that would fully resolve the case.
Reasons for the Requested Stay
The parties said a stay would preserve their resources, promote efficient use of judicial time, and avoid imposing an undue burden on third-party discovery subjects. At the time of the request, discovery was scheduled to close on May 31, 2025; summary-judgment motions and a joint pretrial order were due June 30, 2025; and trial was scheduled to begin September 8, 2025. The letter also stated that discovery was active and that depositions of Ehrlich and several third parties were scheduled for later in April and throughout May.
Legal Standard Cited
The letter cites the principle that a district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as part of its authority to manage its docket. It also identifies five factors courts in the Southern District of New York consider: the parties’ interests in proceeding quickly and the prejudice from delay, the defendants’ interests and burden, the courts’ interests, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest.
Disposition
The provided text does not state that Judge Kaplan granted or denied the requested stay. It contains no ruling on the underlying claims or on the proposed consent order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.