goodolboy, ... I think Ms. White is talking about a new deposition which could be used in a motion for summary judgment, if necessary, in the civil case. The earlier deposition was not taken in this case. It was taken pursuant to an SEC investigatory subpoena/request.
Unless Marco, Deli, is granted immunity from prosecution, he (just like UC did on the stand in the revocation proceeding) can assert his 5th Amendment rights. He might be as stupid as to have waived them in the earlier deposition, but I suspect not.
And, if Deli had/has an attorney, he will always assert his rights.
However, if Deli is cooperating, the deposition will never see the light of day. The civil case will be closed with a barring order and some sort of fine that Deli will have to pay.
The feds do not reveal any more than they absolutely have to about pending criminal investigations. Unless they have to, they will not reveal anything Deli told them about others by name. They usually just omit the names or use terms like "Co-Conspirator No. 1." The feds could have named the people Deli sold for in the complaint to illustrate what they know happened, they just didn't because they didn't want to.
I think Ms. White told you the truth, but she also knows how the system works. It will be a while and, if things change and Deli squeals, it will be never or not until an indictment is returned (and, then, only to the defense attorneys of the person(s) indicted so they can prepare for trial).
Watch and see who is right. ... eom
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
