Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran
- Louis Stanton
- 1:18-cv-05839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Structured Asset Sales v. Sheeran, defendants asked Judge Stanton to bar a second musicology report, but the provided document contains no court ruling.
The dispute concerned Structured Asset Sales, LLC, the plaintiffs’ second musicology report, the defendants’ ability to respond to expert reports, and the scheduling of expert disclosures. The provided document does not state the effect of any court ruling because none is included.
What happened
In Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, the defendants objected to a second musicology report that plaintiffs served on May 7, 2020. The defendants said plaintiffs had previously represented that their musicology report was already served and that only damages reports remained.
The defendants argued that plaintiffs had not requested or received permission to serve another musicology report. They asked the court to bar the second report and said the timing of the defendants’ responsive report was unclear.
The provided document is a letter from defense counsel, not a court order. Judge Louis L. Stanton’s ruling on the request does not appear in the text provided.
The detailed version
- Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran · No. 1:18-cv-05839
- Louis Stanton
- May 11, 2020
Document and posture
The provided text is a May 8, 2020 letter from defense counsel Donald S. Zakarin to Judge Louis L. Stanton. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state a disposition of the defendants’ request.
Background
The defendants said plaintiffs served a musicology expert report by John Covach on April 22, 2020, after the deadline in the scheduling order. Plaintiffs then sought additional time to serve the remaining expert reports by May 31, 2020. According to the defendants, plaintiffs represented that the remaining reports were damages reports that would account for additional financial information about concert and merchandise income.
The defendants said that, on May 7, plaintiffs served a second musicology report from another musicologist without requesting or receiving permission from the court. They argued that plaintiffs’ earlier representations and the court’s May 4 endorsed order permitted additional time only for the remaining expert reports, which the defendants characterized as damages reports.
Arguments and requested relief
The defendants argued that the second musicology report violated the scheduling order and was inconsistent with the representations plaintiffs made when seeking additional time. They also said the scheduling order ordinarily gave defendants 30 days to serve responsive expert reports, but the second report made the response deadline unclear. The defendants asked that the second musicology report be barred.
The letter also mentions a separate request by plaintiffs for a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed fourth amended complaint. The provided text says the defendants would address that request in a separate letter; it does not present a ruling on that request.
Ruling and disposition
No ruling appears in the provided document. The text therefore does not establish whether Judge Louis L. Stanton granted, denied, or otherwise decided the defendants’ request to bar the second report.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.