Lunai Bioworks, Inc. v. Does 1-50 et al
| Lunai Bioworks, Inc. |
| Does 1-50, Roe Corporations 1-50 and XYZ LLCs 1-50 |
| 1:2026cv00549 |
| May 11, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Colm F Connolly |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 9, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 30 Letter to Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Veronica B. Bartholomew regarding Opposition to Plaintiff Lunai Bioworks, Inc.'s Emergency Motion to Compel (D.I. 23) - re #23 Emergency MOTION to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Citadel Securities lLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Bartholomew, Veronica) |
Filing 29
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the July 9, 2026 letter, (D.I. #28 ), hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC, (D.I. #9 ), is DENIED as MOOT. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/09/2026. (sam)
|
| Filing 28 Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Sidney S. Liebesman Attorney for Lunai Bioworks, Inc. regarding Joint Status Letter - re 25 Oral Order,,,,. (Liebesman, Sidney) |
| Filing 27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Oral Order Regarding Plaintiff Lunai Bioworks, Inc.'s Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC by Lunai Bioworks, Inc. re 25 Oral Order,,,, (Cinaglia, Carmella) |
| Filing 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Oral Order Regarding Plaintiff Lunai Bioworks, Inc.'s Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Citadel Securities LLC by Lunai Bioworks, Inc. re 24 Oral Order,,,,,,, (Cinaglia, Carmella) |
|
Filing 25
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff and third party Goldman Sachs & Co., LLCs (Goldman) briefing, (D.I. #9 ; D.I. #20 ; D.I. #22 ), regarding Plaintiffs motion to compel (Motion), (D.I. #9 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By no later than July 9, 2026, absent further order of the Court, the parties shall file a joint status letter of no more than three single-spaced pages, in which they advise the Court as to: (a) what documents sought by Plaintiff has Goldman produced as of that date; (b) what sought-after documents has Goldman committed to produce in the future (and by when); and (c) whether there is any remaining still-disputed portion of the Motion for the Court to resolve (and if so, what documents that dispute implicates).; (2) To the extent any dispute remains as of July 9, the Court will be prepared to resolve the Motion thereafter.; and (3) Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Goldman as soon as is practicable and in any event no later than by July 6, 2026, and file a proof of service. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/02/2026. (sam)
|
|
Filing 24
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Citadel Securities LLC (Citadel) (Motion), (D.I. #23 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By July 9, 2026, third-party respondent Citadel may file a responsive letter brief, not to exceed four (4) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining its reasons for its opposing the Motion.; (3) By July 13, 2026, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) The parties should also consult and follow Judge Burkes Guidelines for Discovery Disputes, which is found in the Guidelines tab on Judge Burkes portion of the District Courts website. And at least one side should attach a copy of the actual subpoena at issue to their brief.; (5) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute(s), see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, #https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute(s) in the future.; and (6) Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Citadel as soon as is practicable and in any event no later than by July 6, 2026, and file a proof of service. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/02/2026. (sam)
|
|
ORAL ORDER: The Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Citadel Securities LLC (D.I. #23 ) is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 7/1/2026. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke. (mws)
|
| Filing 23 Emergency MOTION to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Citadel Securities lLC - filed by Lunai Bioworks, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Text of Proposed Order) Motion referred to Christopher J. Burke. (Liebesman, Sidney) Modified on 7/1/2026 (mws). |
| Filing 22 Letter to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke from Sidney S. Liebesman regarding Reply Letter Brief - re 16 Oral Order,,,,,, #20 Letter, #9 Emergency MOTION to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC. (Liebesman, Sidney) |
| Filing 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Stipulated Protective Order Governing Third-Party Discovery Productions by Lunai Bioworks, Inc. re #19 Order on Motion for Protective Order (Cinaglia, Carmella) |
| Filing 20 Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Kelly E. Farnan, Esq. regarding Response to Motion to Compel - re #9 Emergency MOTION to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC. (Farnan, Kelly) |
|
Filing 19
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on relevant third parties by June 23, 2026, and file a proof of service. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/22/2026. (sam)
|
| Filing 18 Letter to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke from Sidney S. Liebesman regarding enclosing agreed-upon protective order - re 17 Oral Order,,,. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Liebesman, Sidney) |
|
Filing 17
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement Governing Documents Produced in Response to Rule 45 Subpoenas (Motion), (D.I. #10 ), and the June 12, 2026 letter filed by Citadel Securities LLC, Virtu Americas LLC, and UBS Securities LLC (the Subpoena Recipients), (D.I. #15 ), hereby ORDERS that by no later than June 18, 2026, Plaintiff and the Subpoena Recipients shall meet and confer to address the issues identified in the Motion and letter, and determine whether there are any remaining disputes that require judicial attention at this time. Plaintiff and the Subpoena Recipients shall file a joint letter with the Court by that same date describing the results of those efforts, including whether a briefing schedule need be set. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/15/2026. (mlc)
|
|
Filing 16
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC (Goldman Sachs) (Motion), (D.I. #9 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By June 22, 2026, third-party respondent Goldman Sachs may file a responsive letter brief, not to exceed four (4) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining its reasons for its opposition to the Motion.; (3) By June 24, 2026, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a reply letter brief, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font.; (4) The parties should also consult and follow Judge Burkes Guidelines for Discovery Disputes, which is found in the Guidelines tab on Judge Burkes portion of the District Courts website (and at least one side should attach a copy of the actual subpoena at issue to their brief).; (5) The Court will plan to resolve the dispute on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute(s), see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute(s) in the future.; and (6) Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Goldman Sachs by June 16, 2026, and file a proof of service. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 6/15/2026. (mlc)
|
|
SO ORDERED, re #13 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Peter H. Fountain filed by Citadel Securities LLC. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 6/15/2026. (mws)
|
| Filing 15 Letter to the Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Veronica B. Bartholomew regarding Response to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion at D.I. 10 - re #10 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement Governing Documents Produced in Response to Rule 45 Subpoenas. (Bartholomew, Veronica) |
| Filing 14 Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Peter H. Fountain. ( re #13 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Peter H. Fountain )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4992033).(Bartholomew, Veronica) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Peter H. Fountain - filed by Citadel Securities LLC. (Bartholomew, Veronica) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Veronica Badway Bartholomew on behalf of Citadel Securities LLC (Bartholomew, Veronica) |
| Filing 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Goldman Sachs & Co, LLC by Lunai Bioworks, Inc. re #9 Emergency MOTION to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC (Liebesman, Sidney) |
| Remark: The parties should be aware that the Court encourages the participation of newer attorneys in courtroom proceedings and at oral argument. Please see the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, a link to which is provided here for the parties' convenience:#http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/forms/StandingOrder2017.pdf (sam) |
| Remark: The parties should follow the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, a copy of which is found on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's webpage: #https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/CJBCC2022.pdf. (sam) |
|
ORAL ORDER: The Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena (D.I. #9 ) and Emergency Motion for Entry of a Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement (D.I. #10 ) are hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 6/10/2026. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke. (mws)
|
| Filing 10 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement Governing Documents Produced in Response to Rule 45 Subpoenas - filed by Lunai Bioworks, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Liebesman, Sidney) Motion referred to Christopher J. Burke. Modified on 6/10/2026 (mws). |
| Filing 9 Emergency MOTION to Compel Compliance with Third-Party Subpoena Directed to Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC - filed by Lunai Bioworks, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits A-D, #2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Liebesman, Sidney) Motion referred to Christopher J. Burke. Modified on 6/10/2026 (mws). |
|
Filing 8
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Engage in Expedited Limited Third-Party Discovery (Motion), (D.I. #7 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons that follow: (1) To determine whether it is appropriate to permit discovery before the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, this Court has applied a good cause standard to assess whether the request is reasonable in light of the relevant circumstances, focusing on factors (the Kone factors) including: (a) the timing and context of the discovery requests, (b) the scope and purpose of the requests, and (c) the nature of the burden to the respondent. Kone Corp. v. ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc., Civ. Action No. 11465LPSCJB, 2011 WL 4478477, at *4 (D. Del. Sept. 26, 2011). And then additionally, where expedited discovery is sought in order to identify unknown or anonymous John Doe defendants[ as here,] this Court and other courts have examined whether that discovery should be permitted (and/or whether good cause exists) by first asking whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim(s) in question. Reybold Grp. of Cos., Inc. v. Does 1-20, 323 F.R.D. 205, 208 (D. Del. 2017). Only if the plaintiff has made this prima facie showing will the Court additionally go on to consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated [a] that it has no other way to identify the alleged wrongdoers, aside from obtaining the discovery at issue[,] or [b] that expedited discovery is necessary because evidence identifying the defendants may be otherwise destroyed[.] Id.; (2) Here, as an initial matter (at least at this early stage, without having had the benefit of an adversarial presentation), it appears that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing for each element of at least Counts I and/or II of the three counts included in the Complaint, via the detailed allegations it made regarding an alleged scheme involving naked short selling and manipulative trading intended to depress [Plaintiffs] stock price[.] (D.I. 7 at 7-8 (citing D.I. 1 at 2-3, 7, 42, 48-60, 62-69, 91-105, 108)); see GFL Advantage Fund, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 272 F.3d 189, 203-07 & n.6 (3d Cir. 2001) (discussing the elements of and pleading requirements for a claim for market manipulation under Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934); FNY Partners Fund LP v. Capri Holdings Ltd., No. 24-1410, 2026 WL 873329, at *5 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2026) (discussing the elements of a claim for securities fraud pursuant to Section 10(b) premised upon false statements or omissions). Plaintiff has also made a plausible argument as to why the third-party discovery sought is the only way to obtain the information at issue (i.e., documents meant to identify participants involved in the alleged naked short selling scheme, and information relating to the participants conduct). Plaintiff asserts that this type of information is uniquely held by market infrastructure entities and market participants. (D.I. 7 at 8 (citing D.I. 1 at 4, 41-45, 48-60, 72-83, 91-105)) On that front, Plaintiff described its efforts (and subsequent failure) to identify potential Defendants through publicly-available records, which only further supports Plaintiffs assertion that there are no alternative means for doing so other than via the discovery at issue. (Id.); (3) The Court also addresses the Kone factors. The timing and context factor supports the Motion. There, Plaintiff asserts that trading anomalies related to its common stock have taken place as recently as May 4, 2026, persuasively suggesting the ongoing nature of the harm caused by the alleged misconduct (and thus, the need for emergent discovery to try to address that harm). (D.I. 7 at 6 (citing D.I. 1 at 90)) Additionally, Plaintiff also stresses the importance of identifying any alleged wrongdoers in advance of its June 1, 2026 hearing before administrators of the Nasdaq Stock Market, who will be determining whether or not to delist Plaintiffs stocka hearing that is allegedly a direct consequence of the instant naked short sale scheme. (Id. at 2-3, 6 (citing D.I. 1 at 95, 97, 100)) As for the scope and purpose of the requests factor and the burden factor, the record seems more of a mixed bag. On the one hand, most or all of the records sought appear relevant to the allegations in the Complaint. And in terms of scope, the requests seem at least focused only on discovering information related to transactions involving: (a) one entitys (i.e., Plaintiffs) stock; (b) during a specific, defined time period wherein Plaintiff has alleged that trading anomalies and market manipulation occurred (i.e., November 1, 2025 to May 11, 2026). (D.I. 7 at 6-8) Yet on the other hand, the scope of the requests goes beyond just seeking to identify wrongdoersin that the requests seem to seek any document at all related to transactions involving Plaintiffs stock during the relevant time period. (Id., ex. A) And so in that way, the requests seem very broad, which could of course amount to a burden to the targets of the requested discovery. With all of that said, without the benefit of an adversarial presentation the Court is not well-positioned to further narrow the proposed requests at this point. (Presumably, though, undue breadth could be negotiated away or challenged by the discovery targets at a later time, if appropriate.); (4) Lastly, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that any implicated privacy interests of Defendants can be later protected in various ways, if need be. (D.I. 7 at 9); see also Reybold Grp. of Cos., 323 F.R.D. at 209.; and (5) Therefore, with many of the relevant considerations supporting leave for Plaintiff to conduct the requested discovery at issue, the Court will grant the Motion. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/20/2026. (mlc)
|
| Filing 7 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Limited Third-Party Discovery - filed by Lunai Bioworks, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Liebesman, Sidney) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. Modified on 5/18/2026 (mws). |
|
ORAL ORDER: The Emergency Motion to Expedite Limited Third-Party Discovery (D.I. #7 ) is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 5/18/2026. (mws)
|
| Filing 6 Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Jacob S. Frenkel. ( re #5 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jacob S. Frenkel )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4969688).(Liebesman, Sidney) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jacob S. Frenkel - filed by Lunai Bioworks, Inc.. (Liebesman, Sidney) |
|
SO ORDERED, re #5 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jacob S. Frenkel, filed by Lunai Bioworks, Inc. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 5/14/2026. (kmd)
|
| Filing 4 JUDGE COLM F. CONNOLLY STANDING ORDERS. Parties shall comply with all applicable standing orders and consult the Court's website for updates. (mws) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (nms) |
| Filing 3 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Lunai Bioworks, Inc.. (Liebesman, Sidney) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (oam) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Does 1-50, Roe Corporations 1-50, XYZ LLCs 1-50 (Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ADEDC-4967362) - filed by Lunai Bioworks, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(oam) |
| No Summons Issued. (oam) |
| DEFICIENCY NOTICE issued by the Court to Plaintiff: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 (b)(1), A party must: (1) file the disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. Counsel is requested to supplement the docket with an appropriate Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (oam) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Delaware 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.
