BRENDAN LLIVAN bsu6.9 lliv14.7 an April Hon Jed Rakoff Via Re Third-Party Defendant Jam8.3 Staley 2s Motion to Sever and Reconsider April Page On March JPMorgan filed two third-pa rty com7.6 plaints against Mr Staley Those-6.4 com7.9 plaints are largely based upon the plaintiffs alle gations and seek to hold Mr Staley fully liable any jud6.1 ent in th case4.9 The third-4.1 party com8.9 lain6.1 ts so seek rep6.1 ent all com8.2 pensation that JPMorgan paid to Mr St aley from8 to Although the third-party com8.6 laints are heav5.8 ily based on allegati ons by Doe and the USVI JPMorgan does signif3.9 can5.9 ddition5.9 al legation5.9 aga4.7 nst Sta4.7 ey On March Morgan filed a standard10.7 waiver of service signed by undersigned counsel which stated that understand that I or the entity I represent st file nd serve an answer or a motion under Rule within days from6.7 Dkt Two days later on March this Court held a scheduling conference to address how Mr Stal ey 2s late addition as a party would pact the case schedule At the conference undersigned counsel requested that the Court set trial in Ma rch in light of the agnitude a nd gravity of the case The Court instead continued the trial for only six weeks to October During the conference the Court raised5.7 the fact that JPMorgan had filed a waiver of service which provided Mr Staley days to respond under deral Rules of Civil Pro cedure and a A ii The Court encouraged5.6 JPMorgan to personally5.6 serve Mr al apparently expecti ng that personal service would vitiate the waiver and tr igger the 21-day response deadlin under Rule a A i The parties then presen5.7 the Court with the4.5 i sition5.8 on all inte4.6 rim8.6 deadlines a ail As Exhibit A reflects Mr Staley oposed a st andstill of all depositions4.7 until May and that fact discovery close on July Duri ng an off-the-record argum8.5 ent regarding the schedule Mr Staley 2s counsel ex plained ong other things that Mr Staley could not adequately prepare a defense with any less ti and that lead counsel for Mr Staley has a federal crim7.3 inal trial beginning in late May The Court 2s sc heduling order nonetheless set a May deadline for the close of fact discovery kt The Court also required that Mr aley serve all interrogatories and requests for adm8 ssion by April 227less than a onth after he entered the case and before any response to the com7.9 plaint was due Id The ourt further ordered that there would be no stand5.7 still deposition5.7 ruling instead at Staley could e-depose witnesses4.8 deposed bef7.8 ore April The Court stated howe ver that Mr Staley 2s depositions would be lim8.5 ited to two hours and had to be conducted telephonically Id Finally the Court ordered Mr Staley to respond to the com8.4 laint by April days from when he waived service Id.6 The discov5.8 is se 227which J5 P2 Morg an did not begin sendi ng until March 227has been volum8.5 inous Mr Staley has to date received well over docum8.1 ents spanning pages estim8.5 ate that it would take over hours of ttorney tim8.4 to review that volum8.4 assum8.7 ng a docum8.7 ent per hour pace It pear at JPMorgan the other parties continu5.5 ng to ke rolling productio5.5 eaning that the of docum8.7 en ts will ly continue to grow Argum8.8 ent As to the heduling iss5.2 u1 a o1 ti on for reconsideration should be granted in order to 223prevent nifest injustice Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov YLL Irrevocable Tr F.3d 2d Cir As to the severance issue it is overned by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a and under which this Court has the discretion to sever third-party claim8.7 and order that they be trie separately 223for convenience to avoid prejudice or to expedite and econom7.5 ize Fed Civ Here to pr event a m8 nifest injustic and to avoid severely Case Document Filed Page of WILLIAMS CONNOLLYLLP April Page prejudicing Mr Staley 2s defense the Court should for four reas1.8 ons grant the independent forms-5.7 relief m8 ntioned above m8 odification of the schedule and severance First Mr aley is severely pr ejudiced by the schedule and cannot adequately prepare a defense without reasonable tim8.2 for discovery lead counsel has trial in May ning that-6.8 the current schedule effectively deprives Mr aley of his longtim8 lawyer and choice of counsel But even sent the tria4.7 conf3.9 lict,5.9 the4.7 presen5.9 sc dule afford5.4 Mr Staley5.4 grossly insufficient tim8.2 to ount a defense The allegations against hi are slanderous and the potential dam7.7 ges astronom8.1 ical Given these stakes he should at the very least be afforded the sam7.8 rights as any other litigant before this Court including those in this se.6 This is all the o1 re true given the volum8.2 of discovery and th te d6 ate on6 whic4.8 Mr ale4.8 y1 st ted6 to6 rece4.8 ive it But despite4.8 JPMorgan trying to stick Mr Staley with all the liability he has som8.3 how ended up th less tim10 e6 than any other party JPMorgan has no answer to Mr Staley 2s prejudice other than to state that received a deposition subpoena when a non-party Th is isn 2t a serious argu m8 nt preparing for a deposition as a non-party witness bears no relation defending and trying an entire case And if anything it is the other parties who have an a dvantage due to their prio knowledge and possession of docum8 ent-7 the USVI and counsel for Doe have been5.8 invo5.8 lved Epstei n-related litigation for years and JPMorgan po5 ssesses a li brary of relevant terials which it presum7.6 ably reviewed pre com8.2 plaint given that its relationship ith Epstein has received such scrutiny Second the current schedule deprives Mr Staley of basic procedural rights By allowing Mr Staley to re-depose witnesses w8 hose deposit ions occur before April the Court recognized that Mr Staley has a lot of catching up to do given JPMorgan 2s several-month at least head start But the Court lim8.4 ited those depositions to just two hours and required that they be conducted telephonically Rule however provides that civ il litigants have da of hours to conduct their exam8.3 inations Fed Civ The Rule also defaults to in-person depositions Fed Civ But Rule is not the only Ru le that has been fied for Mr Staley Both Rule and Rule a A ii provide that any defendant ho tim8.6 ely returns5 a waiver of service need not respond to any co mplaint until days af ter the request was sent That is exactly what Mr Staley did nd yet this Court shaved two weeks off Mr Staley 2s response deadline Third Mr Staley 2s defenses raise different is sues and require broader discovery than JPMorgan def3.9 enses For exam8.7 ple Mr Sta4.7 ey 2s def3.9 ens5.1 es will ire exp5.9 ora4.7 tion his relationship with JPMorgan dating back to at least years ago 227and extending well-6.8 beyond the tim8.4 he left ilarly JPMorgan seeks dam8.2 ges that exceed what it owe plaintiffs claim8.2 ng for exam8.2 ple losses from dverse publicity that would require docum8.2 discovery 227even expert discovery 227far beyond plaintiffs case Dkt It is impossible to take the necessary discovery on such i ssues in a tter of weeks Fourth there would be no prejudice to any other party from8.4 severing the third-party claim8.4 The plaintiffs support severance And JPMorgan should not be eard to com7.7 plain given that it has the st to gain om the prejud5.9 to Mr Stal ey And if there we to JPMorgan 2s witnesses from8.4 having to appear at two tria4.7 ls that prejud5.9 pales in mparison to the ejud5.4 ice that aley would5.4 uffer if he re not granted additional tim for fact discovery Respectf3.9 lly5.9 subm8.7 itted Brendan Sullivan Jr Case Document Filed Page of WILLIAMS CONNOLLYLL
7,612 characters
