Advanced Analytics, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Background

Advanced Analytics, Inc. filed two motions concerning the record underlying its pending appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The First Motion asked the district court, among other things, to supplement the appellate record and require the defendants to cooperate in completing it. The Second Motion sought approval of the plaintiff’s proposed “statement of evidence” and sanctions against the defendants for alleged civil conspiracy, fraud, and deception of the court. The plaintiff relied on several Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, New York laws and professional-conduct rules, and the court’s inherent authority.

Second Circuit proceedings

The plaintiff had recently sought similar relief from the Second Circuit. On August 22, 2023, that court denied the plaintiff’s motion to complete the record and for sanctions. The Second Circuit stated that it would not consider further motions or communications about completing the record or appendix, and it relieved the parties of any obligation to make further attempts to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 30(b)(1).

The Second Circuit directed that outstanding record issues be raised in the parties’ appellate briefs for consideration by the merits panel. It also explained that the defendants could file a supplemental appendix or identify relevant record materials in their brief, and that the plaintiff could respond in a reply brief.

Reasons for the ruling

The district court concluded that the plaintiff was essentially asking it to provide relief that the Second Circuit had declined to provide. Because the Second Circuit had already addressed the state of the record and specified how any remaining issues should be presented, the district court said it was not in a position to direct otherwise.

The court also addressed requests concerning confidentiality designations and the sealing of court filings dating back to 2004. It stated that those requests had either already been rejected or were years late. The court further agreed with the defendants that materials not filed in the case, or materials affirmatively stricken, should not be added to the appellate record. It explained that the appellate-record rules are meant to correct omissions or misstatements, not introduce new evidence.

The court additionally stated that it would not approve the plaintiff’s proposed statement of evidence as a substitute for a transcript. The statement was unsigned, and the court found that it included material outside the scope of the applicable appellate rule, including correspondence outside the court, unrelated filings and rulings, and legal theories about the court’s decisions.

Disposition

The court denied both motions and denied the plaintiff’s related request for sanctions. The clerk was directed to close ECF Nos. 503 and 507. This was a procedural order concerning the appellate record, sealing-related requests, and sanctions; it did not decide the underlying merits of the litigation.