Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Poloniex Llc x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Other Fraud | New York Southern
Order on Motion for Conference
ORDER denying 659 Letter Motion for Conference ; denying 660 Letter Motion for Conference. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' request for a pre-motion conference regarding an anticipated motion for sanctions related to the destruction of Defendant Giancarlo Devasini's notebook (Dkt. #659-660), as well as B/T Defendants' above response (Dkt. #663-665). Plaintiffs' request for a conference is DENIED because the relief that Plaintiffs' seek is not warranted here. Namely, Defendants are right that Mr. Devasini's testimony relates to how Tether tracked the amounts that Bitfinex owed it for USDT issuances, not whether Bitfinex could cover those amounts. (Dkt. #655 at 41:17-43:25, 52:23-53:17). Surely, the questions are related, but there is no evidence that the notebook contained the information that Plaintiffs state that it did. Additionally, at least some version of the information from the notebook is available on the blockchain, making sanctions improper. See R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. So, 271 F.R.D. 13, 25 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("Where the discovery violation involves spoliation or withholding of evidence, the absence of prejudice can be shown by demonstrating, for example, that the other parties were able to obtain the same evidence from another source[.]"). Finally, there is no evidence that Mr. Devasini acted with the requisite culpability in his destruction of the notebook. (See Dkt. #655 at 52:23-53:17). Because the loss of the notebook was at best negligent, Plaintiffs must provide extrinsic evidence showing that the information in the agenda was relevant and would have been unfavorable to Defendants. UrthTech LLC, v. GOJO Indus., Inc., No. 22 Civ. 6727 (PKC) (KHP), 2026 WL 263333, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Great N. Ins. Co. v. Power Cooling, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 874 (ERK) (KAM), 2007 WL 2687666, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2007)). Plaintiffs have not offered any such evidence. Consequently, their request for relief is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 659 and 660. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/9/2026) (rro)
Order on Motion to Seal
ORDER granting 663 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 663 and to maintain docket entry 665 under seal. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/9/2026) (rro)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.