Great Mill Rock LLC v. Stellex Capital Management LP
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-03056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Great Mill Rock v. Stellex Capital Management, Plaintiffs asked Judge McMahon to deny a discovery stay, but the provided text contains no ruling.
The dispute concerns Great Mill Rock LLC, Christopher Whalen, and Adi Pekmezovic; Stellex Capital Management LP, Stellex Capital Management LLC, and J. Anthony Braddock; and the New York State Common Retirement Fund as the proposed subpoena recipient.
What happened
In Great Mill Rock LLC v. Stellex Capital Management LP, Great Mill Rock LLC, Christopher Whalen, and Adi Pekmezovic opposed Defendants’ request to pause discovery from the New York State Common Retirement Fund until the court decided a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs described the fund as a potentially important witness.
Plaintiffs argued that the requested pause could prevent timely discovery before the November 2020 deadline and would harm their ability to develop their case. They also argued that Defendants had not shown comparable harm from the subpoena.
The letter was addressed to Judge Colleen McMahon and asked her to deny the motion. The provided text is an argument by Plaintiffs’ lawyers, not a court ruling, so it does not show whether Judge McMahon granted or denied the motion.
The detailed version
- Great Mill Rock LLC v. Stellex Capital Management LP · No. 1:20-cv-03056
- Colleen McMahon
- July 16, 2020
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is a July 15, 2020 letter from White & Case LLP to Judge Colleen McMahon. It responds to a July 13, 2020 letter motion filed by Stellex Capital Management LP, Stellex Capital Management LLC, and J. Anthony Braddock. The text does not include a court order or state how the court ruled.
Parties’ positions
Plaintiffs Great Mill Rock LLC, Christopher Whalen, and Adi Pekmezovic asked the court to deny Defendants’ motion to stay, or pause, discovery from the New York State Common Retirement Fund until the court resolved Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs characterized the New York State Common Retirement Fund as a relevant third-party witness with information about the alleged representations concerning a proposed investment fund, certain investment transactions, and other matters.
Plaintiffs argued that delaying the subpoena could prevent them from completing discovery before the court-ordered November 2020 deadline. They also argued that Defendants had not adequately shown prejudice from the subpoena and that any harm to Defendants would be outweighed by the harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs disputed Defendants’ characterization of one subpoena request concerning issues or concerns about J. Anthony Braddock’s performance.
What the text establishes
The letter requests that the discovery-stay motion be denied. It does not establish that the motion was denied, granted, or otherwise resolved. It also does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.