Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:17-cv-08036_de161> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08036_de161 RegisterActionDate "2019-09-22" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08036_de161 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Each side has filed a motion to compel discovery. (1) Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's motion to compel 151 is denied. Plaintiff requests information regarding defendants' investment in and dealings with a company called DXL, in which both defendant EB4589C and Seymour Holtzman are investors and on whose board Holtzman sits. Plaintiff's claims in this case concern defendants' alleged legal representation of plaintiff in connection with an entity whose members were plaintiff, EB4589C, and Holtzman. Plaintiff says that information regarding defendants' investment in DXL is relevant to show EB4589C and Holtzman's biases and credibility. Defendants latch onto plaintiff's repeated use of the term "conspiracy" and point out that plaintiff has not asserted a "conspiracy" claim as such. This is a red herring; the thrust of plaintiff's claims, at least in part, is that defendants acted to further their own and Holtzman's interests rather than plaintiff's, and that defendants and Holtzman acted in concert in connection with defendants' claimed breaches of fiduciary duty vis--vis plaintiff. But neither this nor plaintiff's theory of liability make the requested records regarding DXL discoverable. Plaintiff already has obtained information reflecting that EB4589C is a significant investor in an entity in which Holtzman is also an investor and on whose board Holtzman sits. That is sufficient for the purposes plaintiff cites; information regarding the details is not likely to advance the ball further. And plaintiff's contention that further discovery might turn up information regarding improprieties by defendants or Holtzman with respect to DXL, such as insider trading, is speculative. In short, plaintiff's motion is unpersuasive on its face. The Court denies the motion. (2) Defendants' motion. With regard to defendants' motion to compel, the Court has questions that it intends to ask at the hearing set for 9/23/2019. The motion seeks further discovery regarding the following allegation in plaintiff's amended complaint: "[O]n September 29, 2016, 169EF81 caused $1.3 million to be deposited into FBF's escrow account, via a wire transfer from M Group Two, LLC, an entity of which 169EF81 is the founder and managing member (and whose initial 'M' stands for 169EF81)." Am. Compl., par. 23. FBF was the escrowee regarding the transaction that is the primary subject of plaintiff's complaint. Defendants have already obtained discovery--pursuant to an earlier order by the Court--regarding this transfer. Now they seek more, specifically M Group Two, LLC's operating agreements. Plaintiff has already responded that he has no responsive documents, but the odds are that if he is the managing member as he alleged, plaintiff has the ability to get any such documents such that they are within his control and thus subject to production if they are relevant. At the hearing on 9/23/2019, defense counsel needs to be prepared to explain, with specificity, why these documents are relevant, i.e. how they may tend to make more or less likely some pertinent matter that the Court or the jury will have to decide in this case. Once defense counsel provides that explanation, the Court will of course give plaintiff's counsel an opportunity to respond orally at the hearing. (mk) (Entered: 09/22/2019)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08036_de161 AdministrativeID "159" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08036_de161 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08036_de161 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:17-cv-08036_de153 @default.