Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sugarman
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-05998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sugarman, Judge Wang denied Sugarman’s motion as premature because witness lists are governed by Rule 26(a)(3), not Rule 26(a)(1).
The ruling affected defendant Jason Sugarman’s effort to require the SEC to narrow its initial witness disclosures or change the deposition limits. It also preserved the SEC’s disclosures at this stage, although the court did not decide whether they ultimately complied with the disclosure rules.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sugarman, Jason Sugarman asked the court to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to narrow its list of 120 possible witnesses or otherwise allow him to depose witnesses the SEC later identified for trial. He argued that the broad list made it difficult to use his limited 15 fact-witness depositions effectively.
Sugarman argued that the SEC’s list violated the rule requiring parties to identify witnesses they intend to use. The SEC refused to narrow the list and argued, among other things, that Sugarman was already familiar with the witnesses and had reserved the right to rely on the SEC’s witnesses.
Judge Ona T. Wang denied the motion as premature. The court stated that trial witness lists are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3), not the initial-disclosure provision in Rule 26(a)(1).
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sugarman · No. 1:19-cv-05998
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 10, 2022
Background
Defendant Jason Sugarman filed a letter motion asking the court to compel the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise its initial witness disclosures. The SEC had identified 120 individuals in fourteen general categories, using descriptions that Sugarman said were repetitive and did not identify which witnesses the SEC actually expected to use at trial.
The parties’ case-management plan limited each side to 15 fact-witness depositions. Sugarman argued that the SEC’s broad list prevented him from deciding which witnesses to depose and could allow the SEC to rely on witnesses whom he had not deposed. He asked either for an order requiring the SEC to provide a realistic witness list or for a change to the case-management plan allowing him to depose any previously undeposed witness later listed for trial.
The SEC declined to narrow its disclosures. According to the motion, the SEC argued that Sugarman’s familiarity with the witnesses was sufficient and that his reservation of the right to rely on the SEC’s witnesses made his own disclosures similarly broad.
Ruling
The court denied Sugarman’s motion to compel the SEC to revise its initial disclosures as premature. Judge Ona T. Wang stated that witness lists are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3), rather than Rule 26(a)(1), which governs initial disclosures.
The order did not decide whether the SEC’s 120-person disclosure violated Rule 26(a)(1), and it did not separately state a disposition of Sugarman’s alternative request to modify the case-management plan.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.