Benthos Master Fund, Ltd. v. Etra

Background

Aaron Etra asked the court to release him from custody. In emails conveyed to the court through his attorney, Etra said that restrictions at the facility made it difficult to work on compliance with the court’s forensic protocol and to obtain records. He also cited medical conditions, missed medical visits, limited access to computers and telephones, and his desire to reunite with his family for Passover.

Etra said that Mare Sklar had his power of attorney and would help provide materials not protected by the Fifth Amendment. He also asserted that he had never personally received Benthos’s funds and that his own assets and income were limited.

Court’s Reasoning

The court stated that Etra had had ample opportunity to comply with its orders before he was remanded for contempt. It rejected the argument that the difficulty of complying while incarcerated excused his earlier failure to produce documents. The court identified records such as credit-card bills, email communications, and a list of Etra’s financial accounts as materials that should have been readily accessible.

The court also stated that, if Etra claimed he could not obtain the ordered records, he had to present evidence beyond Etra’s or Sklar’s statements. The court said it did not credit those statements because of what it characterized as Etra’s pattern of deceit. Although the court expressed sympathy for Etra’s desire to be with his family, it did not order his release.

Disposition

The court denied Etra’s request for release. It also directed the clerk to mail a copy of the order to Etra at the detention facility and note the mailing on the docket. This order addressed Etra’s custody and compliance with prior orders; it did not decide the underlying dispute on its merits.