United States District Court, S.D. New York
DAVID E. KAPLAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
S.A.C. CAPITAL ADVISORS, L.P., et al., Defendants
For David E. Kaplan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Roxy D. Sullivan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lindsey Rankin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Michael S. Allen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Chi-Pin Hsu, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Gary W. Muensterman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiffs: Emma Gilmore, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, New York, NY; Ethan David Wohl, Wohl & Fruchter LLP, New York, NY; Jason Samuel Cowart, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, New York, NY; Krista Thomas Rosen, Sara Jean Wigmore, Wohl & Fructher LLP, New York, NY.
For S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., S.A.C. Capital Advisors, Inc., CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC, Steven A. Cohen, Defendants: Audra Jan Soloway, Daniel Jonathan Kramer, Michael E. Gertzman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jonathan Hillel Hurwitz, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NY), New York, NY; Martin B Klotz, Michael Steven Schachter, Sameer Nitanand Advani, LEAD ATTORNEY, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), New York, NY.
For Mathew Martoma, Defendant: Daniel Prugh Roeser, Larkin M Morton, Richard Mark Strassberg, Goodwin Procter, LLP(NYC), New York, NY; John Owen Farley, Roberto M. Braceras, Goodwin Procter, LLP (Boston), Boston, MA.
For Sidney Gilman, Defendant: David Ross Kolker, Laurence Allen Silverman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, New York, NY.
DECISION AND ORDER
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
On July 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox, to whom this matter had been referred for supervision of pretrial proceedings, issued an Order (the " Order" ). (See Dkt. No. 84.) Magistrate Judge Fox considered plaintiffs's motion for an order granting them relief from the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (" PSLRA" ) discovery stay, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b) (3) (B). In relevant part, the Order: 1) granted plaintiffs's motion in part by modifying the PSLRA discovery stay " for the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to obtain all document discovery now or hereafter produced to the defendants by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United states Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York in connection with
United States v. Martoma, No. 12 Cr. 973 (PGG) and SEC v. CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC, No. 12 Civ. 8466 (VM)" ; and 2) denied plaintiffs's request for relief from the PSLRA discovery stay with respect to " trading records evidencing Defendants' trades in Elan Corporation, plc securities" during the relevant class period. (See id. at pp. 1-2.)
Defendant Mathew Martoma (" Martoma" ) subsequently filed objections to the Order, as did defendants S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., S.A.C. Capital Advisors, Inc., CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC, CR Intrinsic Investments, LLC, S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, S.A.C. Capital Associates, LLC, S.A.C. International Equities, LLC, S.A.C. Select Fund, LLC, and Steven A. Cohen (collectively, the " SAC Defendants" ). (See Dkt. Nos. 90 & 92.) In addition, the SAC Defendants filed a motion
to stay the Order in connection with their objections. (See Dkt. No. 91.) Plaintiffs filed a response (see Dkt. No. 96), and the SAC Defendants filed a reply (see Dkt. No. 100).
Plaintiffs and Martoma reached a stipulation regarding discovery in this matter, thus mooting Martoma's objections, and Magistrate Judge Fox approved it. (See Dkt. No. 98.) The stipulation requires Martoma to provide plaintiffs with, among other materials, certain documents initially produced by S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P. and its affiliates, relating to " trades in Elan Corporation, plc and Wyeth Securities, short positions therein, options thereon, and any other derivatives whose price is linked to the trading price of such securities" from July 1, 2006 to August 30, 2008. (Dkt. No. 101 at p.2.) The SAC Defendants are not parties to the stipulation.
For reasons stated below, the Court adopts the ...