Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres
IN RE:
JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
____________________________________/
This Document Relates to the Non-Federal Securities Actions
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER TO
LIFT THE DISCOVERY STAY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE
Plaintiffs in the non-federal securities actions (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned
counsel, respectfully move for the entry of an Order, in the form filed herewith, lifting the discovery
stay for the limited purpose of issuing a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (“Rule 45”)
commanding The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) to produce records within the
scope of the Court’s June 3, 2021 Order [ECF No. 323] (the “Motion”).
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 3, 2021, the Court ordered that “[r]ecords already produced by Defendants to Congress
and other government entities shall be produced to Plaintiffs upon request” and stayed all other
discovery pending resolution of the forthcoming motions to dismiss. June 3, 2021 Order [ECF No. 323],
at 2. That same day, Plaintiffs requested that Defendants, including DTCC, produce records to Plaintiffs
consistent with the Court’s June 3, 2021 Order. DTCC asserted immunity from party discovery until a
ruling on its anticipated motion to dismiss raising its immunity defense and declined to produce any
records to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and DTCC met and conferred in good faith but were unable to resolve
the issue.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 384 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2021 Page 1 of 5
2
On July 27, 2021, Plaintiffs in the Antitrust Tranche, the Robinhood Tranche and the Other
Broker Dealer Tranche filed their respective consolidated class action complaints, neither of which
name DTCC as a party. [ECF Nos. 358, 359]. As a result, DTCC is no longer a party to this multidistrict
litigation.
II.
ARGUMENT
Given that DTCC is no longer a party, the immunity from party discovery that DTCC previously
asserted is no longer at issue. As such, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order lifting the discovery stay
to allow Plaintiffs to issue a Rule 45 subpoena to DTCC commanding the production of records that
were ordered to be produced pursuant to the Court’s June 3, 2021 Order [ECF No. 323].
DTCC has informed Plaintiffs that it takes no position with respect to the instant motion nor
does DTCC take a position with respect to a lift of the discovery stay. In other words, DTCC does not
object to Plaintiffs issuing non-party document discovery as to DTCC, while reserving all rights under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to that discovery. Correspondingly, Plaintiffs reserve
all rights with respect to that discovery as well.
Further, Plaintiffs’ request is limited to the materials the Court has ordered to be produced by
the parties to the litigation. Plaintiffs seek to lift the discovery stay solely to issue a Rule 45 subpoena
commanding the production of documents from DTCC within the scope of the Court’s June 3, 2021
Order [ECF No. 323].
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request the entry of an Order lifting the
discovery stay for the limited purpose of issuing a Rule 45 subpoena commanding DTCC to produce
records within the scope of the Court’s June 3, 2021 Order [ECF No. 323].
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 384 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2021 Page 2 of 5
3
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A) and (B), Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel for the Antitrust
Tranche hereby certifies that on August 10, 2021, and August 13, 2021, it attempted to confer via email
with all counsel of record for Defendants and with counsel for non-party DTCC, who may be affected
by the relief sought in this Motion. In a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised herein, Plaintiffs’
Co-Lead Counsel for the Antitrust Tranche circulated drafts of this Motion and requested that counsel
advise as to their client’s position by 2:00 p.m. EST August 16, 2021. Counsel for Defendant SoFi
Securities LLC and counsel for non-party DTCC responded that their clients take no position with
respect to the requested relief. Counsel for the remaining Defendants did not respond or raise any
opposition to the Motion.
Dated: August 17, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph R. Saveri
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
Joseph R. Saveri (CA SBN 130064)
Steven N. Williams (CA SBN 175489)
Anupama K. Reddy (CA SBN 324873)
Christopher K.L Young (CA SBN 318371)
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel: (415) 500-6800
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
areddy@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
/s/ Frank R. Schirripa
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA &
CHEVERIE LLP
Frank Schirripa (NY SBN 4103750)
Kathryn Hettler (NY SBN 5126065)
Seth Pavsner (NY SBN 4969689)
Eugene Zaydfudim (NY SBN 5204334)
112 Madison Ave, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 213-8311
fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
khettler@hrsclaw.com
SPavsner@hrsclaw.com
ezaydfudim@hrsclaw.com
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 384 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2021 Page 3 of 5
4
/s/ Peter Safirstein
SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
Peter Safirstein (NY SBN 2044550)
1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10105
Tel: (212) 201-5845
psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com
/s/ Natalia Salas
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
Natalia M. Salas (FBN 44895)
James L. Ferraro (FBN 381659)
James Ferraro, Jr. (FBN 107494)
Bruce S. Rogow (FBN 067999)
Sean A. Burstyn (FBN 1028778)
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 375-0111
nms@ferrarolaw.com
jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
bsr@ferrarolaw.com
sab@ferrarolaw.com
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel
/s/ Rachel W. Furst
GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN,
P.A.
Rachel W. Furst (FBN 45155)
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste 1150
Coral Gables, FL 33134-6040
Tel: 305-442-8666
rwf@grossmanroth.com
Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 384 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2021 Page 4 of 5
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on August 17, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF filing system. I further certify that this motion was served
on all counsel of record via transmission of the Notice of Electronic Filing generated by the Court’s
CM/ECF system.
By: /s/ Rachel W. Furst
Rachel Wagner Furst
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 384 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2021 Page 5 of 5