In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 11 MDL 2262 (NRB). (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20191210838
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the letters dated October 28, 2019 and November 8, 2019 filed by Susman Godfrey on behalf of certain plaintiffs, and the letter dated November 4, 2019 on behalf of the remaining defendants. See ECF Nos. 2996, 3000, 3003. Since May 2018, the Court has made clear that it is receptive to discovery so long as it is directed to established defendants for sustained claims. ECF No. 2507. The Court remains willing to consider di
Summary: ORDER NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the letters dated October 28, 2019 and November 8, 2019 filed by Susman Godfrey on behalf of certain plaintiffs, and the letter dated November 4, 2019 on behalf of the remaining defendants. See ECF Nos. 2996, 3000, 3003. Since May 2018, the Court has made clear that it is receptive to discovery so long as it is directed to established defendants for sustained claims. ECF No. 2507. The Court remains willing to consider dis..
More
ORDER
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the letters dated October 28, 2019 and November 8, 2019 filed by Susman Godfrey on behalf of certain plaintiffs, and the letter dated November 4, 2019 on behalf of the remaining defendants. See ECF Nos. 2996, 3000, 3003. Since May 2018, the Court has made clear that it is receptive to discovery so long as it is directed to established defendants for sustained claims. ECF No. 2507. The Court remains willing to consider discovery proposals consistent with that framework. However, the proposed discovery is not within those parameters. Equally significant is the unwillingness of many plaintiffs to join with Susman Godfrey and consequently to be bound by the terms of any discovery request or compromise. In short, the remaining defendants' concerns about duplication are well-founded. Under these circumstances, the request for a scheduling order is denied without prejudice to another application which addresses the Court's concerns.
Source: Leagle
