!Hola, Paula! I was just saying to FreezeThese, that I wouldn't say it was a bad day for plaintiffs, because Sweeney granted them these items.
1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 at a later date. Here it is a bit easier to read.
1. Plaintiffs’ oral motion during the status conference to extend jurisdictional discovery is GRANTED. Jurisdictional discovery shall be completed by Thursday, December 31, 2015. The parties shall file a joint status report suggesting future proceedings by no later than Thursday, January 21, 2016.
2. In the interest of judicial economy, plaintiffs’ motion to stay briefing on defendant’s supplemental motion to dismiss (Docket #164) is GRANTED.
3. Briefing regarding defendant’s supplemental motion to dismiss (Docket #161) is STAYED.
4. Because this case is in the jurisdictional discovery phase, the court finds that it is premature to grant at this juncture plaintiffs’ various motions to remove the “protected information” designation from certain deposition transcripts and documents produced during jurisdictional discovery. Consequently, the court DENIES as premature the following motions: • Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Defendant’s March 20 Provisional Privilege Log (Docket #148) • Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from the Depositions of Edward DeMarco and Mario Ugoletti (Docket #162) Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 240 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2 • Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents (Docket #165) • Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Treasury and FHFA Documents (Docket #166) • Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Deloitte (Docket #169) • Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Fannie Mae (Docket #170) • Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Unredacted Information in Documents Produced by Freddie Mac (Docket #171)
5. The court GRANTS plaintiffs’ request in Docket #166 to file under seal, and subject to the protective order, the unredacted transcripts and documents at issue in the aforementioned motions in any case challenging the Net Worth Sweep in which plaintiffs appear as parties or amici.
6. Based upon plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations, the court DENIES AS MOOT plaintiffs’ motion to remove the “protected information” designation from certain unredacted information in documents produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers (Docket #172).
7. Because plaintiffs’ various aforementioned motions for de-designation of certain discovery materials are denied, consequently, the court DENIES AS MOOT The New York Times Company’s motion to intervene and for an order de-designating discovery materials (Docket #177). Motions to de-designate or unseal, if such a request is made by a party or a proposed intervenor, will be entertained by the court after the conclusion of briefing of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY Judge
