In Re: JPMORGAN PRECIOUS METALS SPOOFING LITIGATION
- Gregory Woods
- 1:18-cv-10356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In JPMorgan Spoofing Litigation, Judge Koeltl continued the stay until June 30, 2020, denied preliminary discovery, and required a status report.
The plaintiffs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., John Edmonds, the Government, and the continuation of this civil litigation were affected by the stay and discovery rulings.
What happened
In In Re: JPMORGAN PRECIOUS METALS SPOOFING LITIGATION, the Government asked the court to continue pausing the civil case while a related criminal prosecution proceeded in Illinois. The defendants did not oppose the stay, while the plaintiffs accepted only a limited extension and sought discovery from JPMorgan.
The court continued the stay until June 30, 2020, and required the parties to report by June 23 on whether it should continue. It also denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary discovery, finding no realistic need to preserve documents and noting that later motions or the criminal case could make the discovery unnecessary.
Judge John G. Koeltl issued the order and directed the Clerk to close Docket No. 48.
The detailed version
- In Re: JPMORGAN PRECIOUS METALS SPOOFING LITIGATION · No. 1:18-cv-10356
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
The Government moved to continue the stay, meaning the temporary pause, in this civil litigation until the related criminal prosecution in the Northern District of Illinois concluded. The Government relied on the criminal indictment and the overlap between the criminal and civil matters. Counsel for JPMorgan Chase & Co. and John Edmonds did not oppose the stay.
The plaintiffs did not oppose a limited continuation of the stay but opposed keeping the case paused until the criminal case ended. They also sought extensive preliminary discovery from JPMorgan while the stay remained in place. JPMorgan and the Government opposed that discovery, arguing that it was unnecessary and might become moot depending on preliminary motions in the civil case and the outcome of the criminal case. In reply, the Government agreed to a six-month stay followed by a report to the court.
Rulings
The court continued the stay until June 30, 2020. It required the parties to report by June 23, 2020, on whether the stay should continue after that date.
The court denied the request for preliminary discovery. It found no realistic probability that the discovery was needed to preserve documents because JPMorgan had to preserve documents relevant to both proceedings. The court also noted that preliminary motions in the civil case could eliminate the need for the requested discovery.
The Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 48.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.