Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ehrlich

Opinion

wh OS OI OO Se ba IR TR Vr eto Pray 2 Vio COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION rts TRAD, 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 & Faw whe Kansas City, Missouri 64108 DOR SED Ga AS Telephone: (816) 960-7700 EN Atha Dz Facsimile: (816) 960-7750 MEMO —/ www. cfic. gov OO ALAN SIMPSON Fie TREAT EORNE—— Division of I rope a, 816-960-7771 i Enforcement a asimpson@cfte.gov 1s ‘ a April 21, 2025 wilting aCALLY FILED □ Ye —— □ DATE FILED: 7-7-2 |} Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan a United States District Court Southern District of New York Courtroom 21B 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: CFTC y. Stephen Ehrlich, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-8962 (LAK) Dear Judge Kaplan: I write as counsel for Plaintiff in this action. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) and Defendant Stephen Ehrlich (the “Parties”) jointly request that this matter be stayed for ninety (90) days as the Parties work expeditiously to present a consent order resolving the matter to your Honor for consideration. The basis for the duration of the requested stay is set forth below. Late last week, the Parties reached an agreement in principle that is expected to fully resolve this matter. The Parties request a stay in this matter, including all deadlines and hearings in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 29), to preserve the Parties’ resources, maximize judicial economy, and avoid imposing undue burden on third-party discovery subjects. Currently, discovery in this matter is scheduled to close on May 31, 2025. (Ud.). Any summary judgment motions and a joint pretrial order are due by June 30, 2025, and the trial in this matter is set to commence on September 8, 2025. (Ud.). Accordingly, the Parties have been in active discovery, and Defendant Ehrlich’s and several third-party depositions are scheduled to occur later this month and throughout May. A district court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S. Ct. 1636, 1651 (1997). Courts in this District consider the following factors in deciding whether to stay a case: “the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.” Kappel v. Comfort, 914 F. Supp. 1056, 1058 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). soo uf! 7 J Toi ae