Securities and Exchange Commission v. Genovese
- John Koeltl
- 1:18-cv-00942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SEC v. Genovese, Judge Moses ruled that Genovese may represent himself but denied his discovery request without prejudice.
Nicholas J. Genovese and the entity defendants Willow Creek Investments LP and Willow Creek Advisors, LLC; the parties’ discovery schedule was also affected.
What happened
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Genovese concerns Nicholas J. Genovese’s attempt to represent himself and two entities, Willow Creek Investments LP and Willow Creek Advisors, LLC, in the case. Genovese said he owned both entities and wanted to represent them without a lawyer.
The court explained that the entities had to appear through a licensed attorney, although Genovese could represent himself. The court also extended the deadline for the parties’ required joint discovery report to August 24, 2020, and explained that the parties had to confer about a discovery plan and submit a joint written report.
Judge Barbara Moses treated Genovese’s letter as a request to require evidence to be produced in a particular form and denied that request without prejudice, allowing it to be renewed after the discovery report was submitted.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Genovese · No. 1:18-cv-00942
- John Koeltl
- July 22, 2020
Background
Nicholas J. Genovese, who was representing himself, stated that he also represented Willow Creek Investments LP and Willow Creek Advisors, LLC. He said he was the sole owner of both entities. The complaint described Willow Creek Investments LP as a Delaware limited partnership and Willow Creek Advisors, LLC as a Delaware limited liability company.
Representation of the Entities
The court held that the two entities had to appear through a licensed attorney, even though Genovese wholly owned them. Genovese could represent himself, but he could not represent the entity defendants.
Discovery Deadline and Request
The court extended the parties’ deadline to file their required Rule 26(f) report to August 24, 2020. The court explained that Rule 26(f) required the parties to confer jointly to develop a proposed discovery plan and to submit a joint written report describing that plan.
The court treated Genovese’s letter at docket number 33 as a request for an order compelling the production of evidence in a particular form. It denied that request without prejudice, meaning the request could be renewed after the Rule 26(f) report was submitted.
Disposition
The court ruled that Genovese could represent himself but not the two entity defendants, extended the Rule 26(f) report deadline, and denied the evidence-production request without prejudice. The order was signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.