Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 10, 2025

Batanjany v. Clear Street Management LLC

Full caption

Michael Batanjany, Cory Solomon, Patrick Travers, and Jordan Brodsky v. Clear Street Management LLC, Clear Street Derivatives LLC, Clear Holdings LLC, Clear Street LLC, Clear Street Holdings LLC, Clear Street Group Inc., Uriel Ephraim Cohen, and Kenneth Ari Sicklick

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:25-cv-08420
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryPreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Batanjany v. Clear Street, Judge Torres set deadlines, denied two requests, and allowed affidavits for a pending preliminary-injunction motion.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants are affected by the filing deadlines and affidavit procedures. The plaintiffs’ requests for subpoenaed witnesses’ counsel contact information and to reapportion time were denied; subpoenaed witnesses are also referenced in the order.

What happened

In Batanjany v. Clear Street, the court reviewed letters filed by the parties concerning a motion to quash and a preliminary-injunction motion.

The court ordered the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ motion to quash by November 11, 2025, and allowed the plaintiffs to reply by November 12. It denied the plaintiffs’ requests for subpoenaed witnesses’ lawyers’ contact information and to reapportion time, with the latter denial made without prejudice to requests at the November 13 show-cause hearing. The parties could also submit sworn affidavits and additional materials by November 12.

Judge Analisa Torres issued this procedural order; it did not decide the underlying preliminary-injunction motion or the motion to quash.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Batanjany v. Clear Street Management LLC · No. 1:25-cv-08420
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Nov. 10, 2025

Background

The court reviewed the parties’ letters at ECF Nos. 59, 60, and 61. The order addressed scheduling and other requests connected to the plaintiffs’ motion to quash and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not resolve either motion’s underlying issues.

Orders

1. The defendants had to respond to the plaintiffs’ motion to quash at ECF No. 61 at 2 by November 11, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The plaintiffs could file a reply by November 12, 2025, at 12:00 p.m.

2. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to require the defendants to provide contact information for counsel representing subpoenaed witnesses. The court stated that the plaintiffs had not shown why they believed the subpoenaed witnesses would not appear before the court.

3. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to reapportion time, without prejudice to requests made during the November 13 show-cause hearing.

4. The parties could file sworn affidavits supporting their claims. Any affidavits or additional submissions for the court to consider in ruling on the preliminary-injunction motion had to be filed by November 12, 2025, at 4:00 p.m.

Effect of the Order

Judge Analisa Torres entered a procedural order setting deadlines, denying two requests, and permitting additional written evidence. The order does not state a ruling on the merits of the preliminary-injunction motion or the motion to quash.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.