Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-01029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Judge Furman denied motions to stay the case and kept all deadlines in effect.
The trustee, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd., and the existing schedule for the case.
What happened
In Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd., the plaintiff and the intervening Securities Investor Protection Corporation asked the court to pause the case while the Second Circuit considered another related appeal.
The court denied both motions to stay. It ordered that all existing dates and deadlines remain in effect.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the parties to confer and file a joint letter by May 25, 2021, addressing whether either side should be allowed to seek exclusion of expert testimony and, if so, proposing a schedule for that request.
The detailed version
- Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. · No. 1:20-cv-01029
- Jesse Furman
- May 21, 2021
Background
Irving H. Picard, trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, sued RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. The plaintiff and intervenor Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) moved to stay, or pause, the case pending the Second Circuit’s decision in a related appeal.
Rulings
The court exercised its broad discretion over whether to pause the case and denied the plaintiff’s and SIPC’s motions to stay. The court stated that all dates and deadlines would remain in effect.
The court also addressed the defendant’s stated intent to make a later motion to exclude expert testimony. Under the court’s individual rules, such motions generally must be made by the deadline for dispositive motions, unless the court orders otherwise. Because the parties’ summary-judgment schedule did not address expert-exclusion motions, Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to confer and file a joint letter by May 25, 2021, addressing whether either or both parties should be permitted to make such a motion and, if so, proposing a briefing schedule. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate docket entries 50 and 54.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.