Advanced Analytics, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:04-cv-03531
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Advanced Analytics v. Citigroup Global Markets: Judge Swain denied Advanced Analytics’s request to change an earlier order, leaving its judicial-notice motion pending.
Advanced Analytics, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and The Yield Book Inc.; the order denied Advanced Analytics’s request to modify an earlier scheduling-related endorsement and kept further briefing on Advanced Analytics’s judicial-notice motion paused.
What happened
In Advanced Analytics, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Advanced Analytics asked the court to clarify or change an earlier order concerning its request for judicial notice and related motions asking the court to reconsider an earlier ruling.
Advanced Analytics argued that the earlier order might improperly deny its judicial-notice request without giving it an opportunity to respond to the defendants’ arguments. It asked for briefing on the judicial-notice motion and said the motion should remain pending rather than be treated as denied.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Advanced Analytics’s letter-motion to modify the earlier order. She stated that the court had considered Advanced Analytics’s earlier letter before issuing that order, and clarified that the judicial-notice motion was not denied; it would remain pending, with further briefing held in abeyance while the court resolves Advanced Analytics’s pending motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Advanced Analytics, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. · No. 1:04-cv-03531
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 8, 2022
Background
Advanced Analytics, Inc. asked the court to clarify or modify an earlier endorsement of the defendants’ application. The earlier endorsement granted the application to the extent that the defendants’ deadline to respond to Advanced Analytics’s motion for judicial notice and its motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) would be held in abeyance while the court resolved Advanced Analytics’s pending motion for reconsideration.
Advanced Analytics said the endorsement was unclear and might mean that its motion for judicial notice had been denied without an opportunity to respond to the defendants’ application. It argued that the defendants’ application did not provide a substantive opposition to the judicial-notice motion and requested a schedule allowing the defendants 14 days to respond and Advanced Analytics seven days to reply.
Ruling
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Advanced Analytics’s letter-motion to modify the earlier endorsement. The court stated that it had received and considered Advanced Analytics’s February 9 letter before issuing the endorsement.
The court clarified that Advanced Analytics’s motion for judicial notice was not denied. The motion would remain pending, and further briefing would remain held in abeyance while the court resolved Advanced Analytics’s pending motion for reconsideration. The court explained that the reconsideration ruling might make further briefing on the judicial-notice motion unnecessary.
Disposition
The letter-motion to modify the court’s endorsement was denied. The motion for judicial notice remained pending, and briefing on that motion remained paused. This order did not decide the merits of the judicial-notice request or the pending motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.