Full text
[[DMS:6077769v4:04/25/2023--03:14 PM]]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Damian
In re:
JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
_____________________________________/
This Document Relates to the Federal Securities Tranche
DEFENDANTS ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL
LLC AND ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
EXPEDITED MOTION FOR EXPANSION OF PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR
BRIEFING ON THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION TO BE FILED
APRIL 28, 2023
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 556 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 1 of 5
2
Defendants Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC and
Robinhood Securities, LLC (together, “Robinhood”) respectfully oppose Plaintiffs’
Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefing on the Motion for Class
Certification to be Filed April 28, 2023 (the “Motion”).
Robinhood agrees that it is appropriate to expand the default page limits
allowed under the Local Rules so that the parties can fully explore the issues of fact and
law in the class certification briefs. For this reason, Robinhood does not object to the
total number of pages that Plaintiffs seek for their class certification briefs. However,
Plaintiffs should not be permitted to file a reply memorandum of the same length as
Plaintiffs’ opening memorandum. Doing so would allow Plaintiffs inappropriately to
reserve evidence or arguments for their reply instead of including them in Plaintiffs’
opening brief.
Southern District of Florida Local Rules provide that, absent a court’s
permission, a motion and its opposition may not exceed 20 pages and a reply may not
exceed 10 pages. See Local Rule 7.1(c)(2). The rule stands for the principle that a reply
brief should be half the length of the initial brief. The Court followed this principle with
respect to motion to dismiss briefing in this case by doubling the Local Rules’ limits to
permit opening briefs up to 40 pages, oppositions up to 40 pages and reply briefs up to
20 pages. See Dkt. Nos. 323, 431.
As Plaintiffs note in their Motion, Robinhood already agreed that
Plaintiffs could file opening and reply briefs in support of their class certification motion
that total 60 pages. (Motion ¶ 6.) Robinhood proposed allocating 40 of those pages to
Plaintiffs’ opening memorandum and the remaining 20 pages for Plaintiffs’ reply
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 556 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 2 of 5
3
memorandum, consistent with the 40/40/20 split the Court allowed at the motion to
dismiss stage, and consistent with the underlying principle that a reply brief should be
half the length of the initial brief. Plaintiffs, however, rejected this proposal and maintain
that they should be able to submit a reply brief of the same length of their opening brief.
Plaintiffs offer no valid justification for their request to have an initial
brief and reply of the same length. Instead, Plaintiffs claim they “ha[ve] no intention of
filing a 40-page opening brief and s[eek] to allocate more pages on reply.” (Motion ¶ 6.)
As such, the admitted purpose of Plaintiffs’ request is to shift pages of their briefing to
reply even though they have the burden of establishing that a class should be certified.
This is a transparent attempt by Plaintiffs to avoid staking out positions on the issues they
already know will be dispositive from the expert discovery until after Robinhood files its
opposition so that Robinhood will not have a meaningful chance to respond. This is
precisely the kind of tactic that the page allocation in the Local Rules seeks to prevent.
For the reasons discussed above, Robinhood respectfully requests that the
Motion be denied and that the Court order the same number of pages and allocations for
the parties’ class certification briefs that the Court ordered with respect to the motion to
dismiss, setting a limit of 40 pages for Plaintiffs’ opening memorandum, 40 pages for
Robinhood’s opposition and 20 pages for Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 556 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 3 of 5
4
Dated: April 25, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Tom K. Schulte
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
Samuel A. Danon (FBN 892671)
María Castellanos Alvarado (FBN 116545)
Tom K. Schulte (FBN 1025692)
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 810-2500
Facsimile: (305) 810-2460
sdanon@huntonak.com
mcastellanos@hunton.com
tschulte@huntonak.com
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Antony L. Ryan
Kevin J. Orsini
Brittany L. Sukiennik
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019-7475
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
aryan@cravath.com
korsini@cravath.com
bsukiennik@cravath.com
Counsel for Defendants Robinhood
Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC
and Robinhood Securities, LLC
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 556 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 4 of 5
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 25, 2023, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I further certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of
Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner
for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to received Notices of Electronic
Filing.
Dated: April 25, 2023
/s/ Tom K. Schulte
Tom K. Schulte (FBN 1025692)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 556 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 5 of 5