Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:12-cv-06421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson, Judge Karas clarified that Bronson was not barred from calling witnesses at the contempt hearing.
Mr. Bronson and his counsel, whose ability to present additional witnesses at the contempt hearing remained subject to the court’s later decision; the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose scheduled witnesses were also part of the court’s timing assessment.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson, Mr. Bronson asked the court to reconsider its decision about witnesses for a July 7 contempt hearing. He argued that he needed four witnesses to defend against the Securities and Exchange Commission’s allegations and that denying their appearance would violate due process.
The court clarified that it had not ruled that Mr. Bronson could not call any witnesses. Instead, it had determined that there was not enough time to hear the requested witnesses along with those already scheduled for July 7. The court said it would address which additional witnesses would testify after the hearing and noted that the hearing might last multiple days.
Judge Karas also reminded Mr. Bronson and his lawyer that they must follow the court’s orders, including orders requiring production of materials. The response did not expressly state that the court granted permission for an immediate appeal.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson · No. 7:12-cv-06421
- Kenneth Karas
- June 28, 2021
Background
Mr. Bronson submitted a request asking the court to reconsider its May 28, 2021 order concerning witnesses for a July 7 contempt hearing. Alternatively, he asked for permission to seek an immediate appeal of that order. The letter said the Securities and Exchange Commission was asking the court to hold him in criminal contempt for allegedly failing to produce documents required by an April 7, 2021 order.
Mr. Bronson identified four witnesses he wanted to call: William Conway, Zoya Faessler, James Bursey, and Rex Messam. He argued that their testimony would rebut the Commission’s allegations and witnesses. He also argued that, because the Commission sought criminal contempt, due process required a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, including presenting witnesses.
Court’s clarification
The court stated that Mr. Bronson’s letter mischaracterized the prior ruling. According to the court, it had not ruled that Mr. Bronson could not call any witnesses at the July 7 hearing. It had ruled only that there would not be enough time to hear from the requested witnesses given the witnesses already scheduled to testify.
The court explained that it would decide which additional witnesses would testify after the hearing. It also stated that the hearing could last multiple days. The court said it was aware that all parties were entitled to due process.
Ruling and effect
The court’s response clarified the scope of its earlier witness ruling rather than stating that all of Mr. Bronson’s requested witnesses were barred. It also reminded Mr. Bronson and his counsel to comply with the court’s orders, including orders governing production of materials. The text does not expressly state that the court granted permission for an immediate appeal or use the word “denied” for the reconsideration request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.