Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2021

Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:20-cv-01029
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Judge Furman denied motions to stay the case and kept all deadlines in effect.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Irving H. Picard v. RAR Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. · No. 1:20-cv-01029
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.