Mind Medicine Inc. v. Freeman
- Denise Cote
- 1:23-cv-07875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mind Medicine v. Freeman, Judge Cote's materials show a defense request to pause scheduling during a discovery stay, but no court ruling appears.
Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc. and defendants Scott Freeman, Jake Freeman, Chad Boulanger, Farzin Farzanch, Vivek Jain, Alexander Wodka, and FCM MM Holdings, LLC; the requested relief concerned the case schedule and discovery.
What happened
Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc. v. Freeman concerns defendants' request to postpone dates in the scheduling order while their motion to dismiss is pending. The claims arise under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The defendants argued that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires discovery to stop while a motion to dismiss is pending. They asked to adjourn the scheduling deadlines until Judge Cote decides that motion. Mind Medicine's counsel did not join the request, stating that a discovery stay was impractical given the schedule.
The text is a defense letter to Judge Denise L. Cote, not a court order. It does not state that Judge Cote granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the request.
The detailed version
- Mind Medicine Inc. v. Freeman · No. 1:23-cv-07875
- Denise Cote
- Dec. 18, 2023
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a letter motion from defendants' counsel, dated December 13, 2023. It requests an adjournment of the deadlines in the November 9, 2023 scheduling order. The text does not include a judicial opinion or order deciding the request.
Background
Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc. brought claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Scott Freeman, Jake Freeman, Chad Boulanger, Farzin Farzanch, Vivek Jain, Alexander Wodka, and FCM MM Holdings, LLC. The letter states that the defendants had moved to dismiss all of Mind Medicine's claims.
Arguments in the Letter
Defendants' counsel argued that the pending motion to dismiss triggered the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's mandatory stay of discovery. That statute provides that discovery and other proceedings in a private Securities Exchange Act action must be stayed while a motion to dismiss is pending. The defendants therefore asked the court to postpone the scheduling-order dates until the motion to dismiss was decided.
The letter states that Mind Medicine's counsel would not join the request because, in Mind Medicine's view, a discovery stay was impractical given the case schedule and the fact-discovery deadline. Defendants' counsel argued that discovery would be premature because the motion to dismiss raised threshold questions, including whether Mind Medicine's Section 14(a) claim was legally cognizable.
Disposition
No disposition appears in the provided text. The materials do not state that Judge Denise L. Cote granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the letter motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.