Winter Investors, LLC et al v. Panzer et al
| Winter Investors, LLC and Jacob Frydman |
| Scott Panzer, Paul Frischer, Jesse Stein, Sol Mayer, Eli Verschleiser, Etre Financial, LLC, JS3 Alternative Investments, LLC, Frischer Kranz Inc., SMP Realty NM, LLC, Eve, LLC, LH Financial, Etr Investors Holdings LLC and Etre Financial Holdings, LLC |
| 1:2014cv06852 |
| August 22, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Katherine Polk Failla |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
211
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of a letter dated June 14, 2021, from Andrew Hayes, counsel for Plaintiffs Winter Investors, LLC, and Jacob Frydman, requesting that he be relieved as counsel due to a non-waivable conflict. The Court will hold a con ference on this matter on June 30, 2021, at 3:30 p.m. The Court requires the presence of Mr. Hayes, Mr. Frydman, defense counsel Asher Gulko, defendant Eli Verschleiser, and defense counsel David Fryman. The conference will proceed by video. Access instructions will be provided to the parties in advance of the conference. (Telephone Conference set for 6/30/2021 at 03:30 PM before Judge Katherine Polk Failla.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/15/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
206
ENDORSED LETTER terminating 205 Letter Motion for Discovery addressed to Judge Failla from Asher Gulko dated 1/21/2021 re: This letter is in response to Mr. Hayess letter of even date. Document filed by Eve, LLC. ENDORSEMENT: The Court is in r eceipt of Plaintiff's letter motion of January 21, 2021 (Dkt. #205), as well as Defendants' above reply. The Court understands that the imaging of the parties' devices may be a time-intensive endeavor and thus prefers concurrent, rat her than consecutive, action. It is the Court's understanding based on counsel's previous correspondence that this is logistically feasible for the parties' experts. Accordingly, the Court hereby directs that the imaging of the parties ' devices shall occur simultaneously beginning at 10:00 a.m. on January 22, 2021, in accordance with the following protocol unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties in advance. Counsel shall not be physically present, but shall be available t o their respective experts and each other by telephone or other means of communication. 1. At 10:00 a.m. on January 22, 2021, Defendants will permit Plaintiffs previously-identified expert to enter into the premises at 40 Wall St., 60th Floor, and to inspect the laptop and portable hard drive previously described to the Court and designated for inspection, pursuant to the imaging protocol agreed upon by the parties' experts. Defendants may have an observer, other than counsel, on site if de sired. 2. At 10:00 a.m. on January 22, 2021, Plaintiff will permit Defendants previously-identified expert(s) to enter into the premises at 17 State St., 19th Floor, New York NY 10003, and to inspect the laptops, desktop, and server previously descri bed to the Court and designated for inspection,, pursuant to the imaging protocol agreed upon by the parties' experts. Plaintiff may have an observer, other than counsel, on site if desired. If either party desires to change the location where t heir devices will be examined, they are directed to notify opposing counsel and the Court by 10:00 p.m. this evening. Further, if either party believes there is good cause why the procedure set forth above cannot be accomplished, they are directed to notify the Court immediately. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/21/2021) (nb) Modified on 1/22/2021 (nb).
|
|
Filing
204
ORDER denying 199 Motion for Discovery; denying 201 Motion for Discovery.The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer to determine a single date and time in the remainder of January at which time both parties' devices will be sea rched. The parties shall notify the Court by letter, at least 24 hours in advance, of the date and time selected, as well as the method of examination of the devices remote or in person and any other details regarding coordination with and among the retained experts. The parties are further directed to reach agreement on a privilege retention and review protocol within 24 hours of the device examinations, or to file a joint letter to the Court addressing their competing proposals. Plaint iffs' counsel is ORDERED to respond in writing, on or before January 29, 2021, to the request for information regarding his client's data losses in 2016, as discussed in Mr. Gulko's first letter of January 14, 2021 (Dkt. #200). Exam ination of the parties' devices is not contingent on this response and shall proceed in the interim. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions against Defendant Verschleiser and his counsel is DENIED at this time. However, the parties are warned that any further dilatory tactics will not be tolerated. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at docket entries 199 and 201. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/15/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
197
ORDER terminating 192 Letter Motion to Compel; terminating 192 Letter Motion for Discovery: The Court is in receipt of the letters from counsel for Defendants Verschleiser and EVE, LLC (Dkt. #194), from Mr. Verschleiser (Dkt. #195), and from co unsel for Plaintiffs (Dkt. #196). The Court reiterates that it considers Mr. Gulko to be counsel for Mr. Verschleiser, unless and until he is granted leave to withdraw. Accordingly, Mr. Verschleiser's communications with the Court must go throug h counsel. The Court interprets the parties' letters to indicate that the parties believe their respective discovery obligations have been fulfilled. The parties are reminded that if a forensic examination of a specified computer system results in the retrieval of additional materials that should have been produced, liability for the cost of that examination may shift to the withholding party. The Court authorizes the expert put forward by each party to conduct the forensic examinations on their behalf. Unless the parties are able to reach an agreement on other terms, Mr. Verschleiser is ordered to produce his laptop computer and portable hard drive for forensic examination, and Mr. Frydman is ordered to produce the laptops, desktops, and server to which he has access for business purposes, whether his or Mrs. Frydman's. Mr. Frydman's systems will be searched using the search terms proposed by Mr. Verschleiser, to which Plaintiff's counsel previously indicated he consented. Mr. Verschleiser's systems will be searched as further set forth in this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 192. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/18/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
193
ORDER: The Court held a pretrial conference in this matter on September 2, 2020. During that conference, the Court ordered both parties to produce additional discovery material and to submit to forensic investigation certain specified co mputers. After hearing nothing from the parties for several months, on November 17, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter, on or before December 4, 2020, notifying the Court of the status of the production and forensic inv estigations and discussing any remaining discovery disputes or other issues. (Dkt. #191). The Court is now in receipt of the parties' letter dated December 4, 2020 (Dkt. #192), and begins by registering its disappointment with how little p rogress the parties have made towards actually complying with the Court's September 2, 2020 Order. As a separate housekeeping matter, the Court observes that counsel for EVE, LLC, Asher Gulko, has again taken the laboring oar in preparing Mr. Verschleiser's response while simultaneously claiming not to represent him in this litigation. The Court cannot make the metaphysical distinctions that Mr. Gulko has repeatedly asked it to make regarding his true clients. Instead, given the many ways, direct and indirect, in which Mr. Gulko has purported to represent Mr. Verschleiser, the Court will deem him counsel for Mr. Verschleiser going forward in this litigation. The parties' positions are characteristically irreconcilable, and the Court will not waste time detailing the degree to which it agrees with either side's depiction of recent events. Rather, in order to remedy the issues raised by the parties in the December 4, 2020 letter, the Cou rt orders the following events to take place on or before December 15, 2020: as further set forth herein. Thereafter, the parties are directed to meet and confer within one week of the Court's issuance of its approved search terms to set a schedule for the forensic examinations of their respective computer systems, and to notify the Court by letter of the date(s) selected. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/8/2020) (mro)
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER: The Court previously held a pretrial conference in this matter onSeptember 2, 2020. During that conference, the Court ordered both parties to produce additional discovery material and submit to forensic investigation of specified computers. Th e parties are hereby ORDERED to submit a joint letter,on or before December 4, 2020, notifying the Court of the status of the production and forensic investigations. The parties should also discuss any remaining discovery disputes or other issues requiring the Court's attention, as well as anticipated next steps in these proceedings. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/17/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
177
ORDER: Accordingly, fact discovery is scheduled to close on August 15, 2020, expert discovery is scheduled to close on September 8, 2020, and the next pretrial conference is scheduled for August 27, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. (Id.). Given the Court� 39;s long history with this case and Plaintiff's revolving counsel issue, the Court will not endorse the parties proposed order to substitute Plaintiff's counsel without a representation from incoming counsel that substitution will not imp act the current discovery deadlines. SO ORDERED. (Expert Discovery due by 9/8/2020., Fact Discovery due by 8/15/2020., Pretrial Conference set for 8/27/2020 at 02:00 PM before Judge Katherine Polk Failla.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/24/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rro)
|
|
Filing
163
ORDER: The Court held a conference on February 14, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. in which new counsel, Jodie Gerard, of Wrobel Markham LLP, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Winter Investors, LLC; Asher Gulko appeared on behalf of Defendants Eve, LLC and Eli Ve rschleiser; and David Fryman appeared on behalf of Defendants Scott Panzer, Paul Frischer, Jesse Stein, Sol Mayer, JS3 Alternative Investments, LLC, Frischer Kranz Inc., and SMP Realty NM, LLC. Despite attempting to reach David Relkin, counsel for W inter Investors, the Court was unable to reach him by phone to participate in the conference. As discussed at the conference, Jodie Gerard, new counsel for Winter Investors is hereby ORDERED to submit a letter to the Court, on or before, February 21, 2020, with a new proposed discovery schedule for this case, and explaining whether she and her firm will be representing Plaintiff Jacob Frydman. David Relkin is ORDERED to assist Gerard and any other new counsel joining this case on behalf of Winter Investors and/or Frydman to ensure a smooth transition of counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/14/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (jca)
|
|
Filing
83
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Reed Smith LLP's motion to withdraw as counsel to Defendants Eli Verschleiser; EVE, LLC; Sol Mayer, and ETR Investors Holdings LLC. (Dkt. #80-82). Any party wishing to oppose this motion is here by ordered to respond on or before February 14, 2017. On February 22, 2017, a representative for Reed Smith LLP; representatives for each of the four Defendants it represents; and counsel for any party who opposes its motion to withdraw shall appear for a telephonic conference at 4:00 PM. The representatives and counsel are directed to coordinate among themselves and together call the Court's chambers at (212) 805-0290 at this appointed time. ( Responses due by 2/14/2017, Telephone Conference set for 2/22/2017 at 04:00 PM before Judge Katherine Polk Failla.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/31/2017) (mro)
|
|
Filing
73
OPINION AND ORDER re: 50 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Etre Financial, LLC, Scott Panzer, Paul Frischer, Frischer Kranz Inc., Etre Financial Holdings, LLC, SMP Realty NM, LLC, Jesse Stein, JS3 Alternative Investments, LLC, 66 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by LH Financial, 48 MOTION to Compel Arbitration filed by Eve, LLC, Sol Mayer, Eli Verschleiser, Etr Investors Holdings LLC: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motions to compel arbitration of the Signatory Claims and the Employment Agreement Claim are GRANTED; the motion to compel arbitration of the Non-Signatory Claims is DENIED. The Signatory Claims, the Employment Agreement Claims, the Non-Signatory Claims, and the LH Claims are hereby STAYED pending resolution of arbitration proceedings. In light of the stay, LH's motion to dism iss the Amended Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court by January 8, 2016, and every six months thereafter, updating the Court on the status of the arbitration proceedings. By September 9, 2015, th e Verschleiser-Mayer Defendants shall inform the Court if they wish to file a pre-answer motion with respect to the 500 Lincoln Claims. The Court will either set a briefing schedule (which, the Court cautions, will be expedited), or a schedule for De fendant Verschleiser's responsive pleading and discovery limited to the 500 Lincoln Claims, upon receipt of the Verschleiser-Mayer Defendants' letter. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Entries 48, 50, and 56. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/27/2015) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (tn)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
