In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-09236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation: Judge Failla granted plaintiffs’ request in part, keeping agreed depositions scheduled while reserving disputed topics.
The plaintiffs, the B/T Defendants, and Paolo Ardoino were affected by the scheduling and scope of the depositions.
What happened
In In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation, the plaintiffs asked the court to require the defendants to produce Paolo Ardoino for corporate testimony on agreed topics and for individual testimony on September 12 and 13, 2023.
The defendants had agreed to those depositions but later proposed postponing them until October 10 and 11. The plaintiffs opposed the delay and asked for an expedited ruling because discovery was scheduled to close on October 23, 2023.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the request in part. She stated that the depositions should proceed as scheduled for the topics already agreed upon, while the court considered the parties’ submissions about disputed topics and prepared to rule on those topics separately.
The detailed version
- In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation · No. 1:19-cv-09236
- Katherine Failla
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court to require the B/T Defendants to produce Paolo Ardoino for two depositions: a deposition providing corporate testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) and a deposition in his individual capacity. The plaintiffs sought the corporate testimony on Topics 5–8, 10–14, 18–20, and 24, which the parties had agreed upon. The depositions had been scheduled for September 12 and 13, 2023.
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants later announced that they would postpone both depositions and proposed dates in October. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had no valid basis for unilaterally changing the dates and that the depositions needed to occur as scheduled before the October 23, 2023 discovery deadline. The plaintiffs also asked the court to decide the matter on an expedited basis.
Court’s Action
The court marked the request “GRANTED IN PART.” Pending further order, the parties were to proceed on the original schedule with Ardoino’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and individual deposition, but only as to the topics already agreed upon. The court stated that it was considering the parties’ submissions concerning the disputed topics and would rule on those topics shortly. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket 434.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.