In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-09236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation: Judge Failla granted defendants’ request to serve plaintiffs an interrogatory seeking crypto-wallet information.
The B/T Defendants and the plaintiffs in In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation; the order authorizes the defendants to seek specified wallet information from the plaintiffs.
What happened
In In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation, the B/T Defendants asked for permission to send plaintiffs a written question requiring information about crypto wallets they owned or controlled between February 17, 2015, and June 5, 2020.
The proposed question seeks wallet addresses or other identifying account information for plaintiffs’ crypto holdings and transactions. The defendants argued that a written question was a practical way to obtain this information, and the letter states that plaintiffs would not oppose the request.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She authorized the B/T Defendants to serve the proposed interrogatory attached as Exhibit 1 and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 312.
The detailed version
- In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation · No. 1:19-cv-09236
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 7, 2023
Background
The B/T Defendants—iFinex Inc., BFXNA Inc., BFXWW Inc., Tether Holdings Limited, Tether Limited, DigFinex Inc., Tether Operations Limited, Tether International Limited, Ludovicus Jan van der Velde, and Giancarlo Devasini—requested permission to serve an interrogatory on the plaintiffs. An interrogatory is a written question used to obtain information during discovery, the evidence-gathering phase of a case.
The proposed interrogatory asks plaintiffs to identify wallets they owned or controlled from February 17, 2015, through June 5, 2020, including wallet addresses or other identifying account information for their crypto holdings and transactions. The defendants argued that an interrogatory was a more practical method of obtaining the information than document requests or depositions. The letter states that the defendants understood plaintiffs would not oppose the motion.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla’s endorsed order states: “Application GRANTED.” The B/T Defendants may serve the interrogatory discussed in the letter and attached as Exhibit 1 on the plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 312.
Classification
This is a procedural discovery order. It authorizes a discovery request and does not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.