Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran

Background

The provided text is a letter dated June 23, 2020, from Donald S. Zakarin, identified as counsel for the defendants, to Judge Louis L. Stanton. The letter responds to another letter from Mr. Parness concerning expert discovery. The dispute involves whether Structured Asset Sales, LLC could serve rebuttal expert reports under the case’s scheduling orders.

Defendants’ Position

Defendants argued that the original scheduling order required Structured Asset Sales’s expert reports by March 24, 2020, followed by defendants’ expert reports 30 days later and depositions of Structured Asset Sales’s experts within the following 30 days. Defendants contended that this schedule did not provide time for rebuttal reports and that allowing such reports would deprive defendants of a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery about them.

The letter states that the parties’ exchanged drafts of the scheduling order did not request rebuttal reports and did not contain timing that would permit them. Defendants distinguished cases cited by Mr. Parness, asserting that those cases involved scheduling orders with enough time for rebuttal reports or circumstances that did not prejudice discovery. Defendants also argued that Structured Asset Sales had not previously requested permission to serve rebuttal reports when seeking relief concerning its failure to meet the expert-report deadline.

Subsequent Scheduling Orders

The letter states that a May 4, 2020 court order required Structured Asset Sales to serve the balance of its expert reports by May 31, 2020, and that a May 11, 2020 order required defendants to serve their expert reports by July 1, 2020. Defendants maintained that these orders did not change the scheduling framework or authorize rebuttal reports. The letter also discusses disagreements about when expert depositions had to occur and states that the parties later agreed to a discovery schedule, subject to their ability to conduct depositions.

Ruling or Disposition

The provided text does not clearly include a judicial ruling, order, or disposition by Judge Louis L. Stanton. It primarily contains defendants’ arguments that rebuttal expert reports were not contemplated or permitted by the scheduling orders. The text also states that defendants had not yet determined whether the report identified as a rebuttal report qualified as one, because they first disputed whether any rebuttal reports were allowed.