Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of B v. Susanne Stone Marshall et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION 	:
CORPORATION, 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
‒ against ‒ 	:
: 	Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (SMB)
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT 	: 	SIPA LIQUIDATION
SECURITIES LLC, 	: 	(Substantively Consolidated)
Defendant. 	:
---------------------------------------------------------------X
In re: 	:
: 	Case No. 09-11893 (SMB)
BERNARD L. MADOFF, 	:
:
Debtor. 	:
---------------------------------------------------------------X
IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the Liquidation 	:
of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	: 	Adv. Pro. No. 14-01840 (SMB)
:
CAPITAL GROWTH COMPANY; DECISIONS, 	:
INC.; FAVORITE FUNDS; JA PRIMARY 	:
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JA SPECIAL 	:
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JAB PARTNERSHIP; :
JEMW PARTNERSHIP; JF PARTNERSHIP; JFM :
INVESTMENT COMPANIES; JLN 	:
PARTNERSHIP; JMP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; :
JEFFRY M. PICOWER SPECIAL COMPANY; 	:
JEFFRY M. PICOWER, P.C.; THE PICOWER 	:
FOUNDATION; THE PICOWER INSTITUTE OF :
MEDICAL RESEARCH; THE TRUST F/B/O 	:
GABRIELLE H. PICOWER; BARBARA 	:
PICOWER, individually and as Executor of the 	:
Estate of Jeffry M. Picower, and as Trustee for the 	:
Picower Foundation and for the Trust f/b/o Gabriel :
H. Picower, 	:
:
Intervenors, 	:
:
‒ against ‒ 	:
:
SUSANNE STONE MARSHALL; ADELE FOX; 	:
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 1 of 13

2
MARSHA PESHKIN; RUSSELL OASIS; A & G 	:
GOLDMAN PARTNERSHIP; and PAMELA 	:
GOLDMAN 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
---------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FROM THE TRUSTEE, APRIL
FRIELICH, BARBARA PICOWER, AND BERNARD MADOFF
A P P E A R A N C E S:
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10111
David J. Sheehan, Esq.
Deborah H. Renner, Esq.
Tracy L. Cole, Esq.
Keith R. Murphy, Esq.
Amy Vanderwal, Esq.
Ferve Ozturk, Esq.
Of Counsel
Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the
Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
and the Estate of Bernard L. Madoff
BECKER & POLIAKOFF LLP
45 Broadway, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10006
Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq.
Lance Gotthoffer, Esq.
Peter W. Smith, Esq.
Julie Gorchkova, Esq.
Of Counsel
Attorneys for Susanne Stone Marshall, Adele Fox,
Marsha Peskin, and Russell Oasis
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 2 of 13

3
SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
William D. Zabel, Esq.
Marcy Ressler Harris, Esq.
Michael Kwon, Esq.
Jennifer M. Opheim, Esq.
Of Counsel
Attorneys for Intervenors the Picower Parties
STUART M. BERNSTEIN
United States Bankruptcy Judge:
The defendants (the “Fox Parties”), former customers of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), request discovery pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure (“Rule 2004”) and Rules 26, 27, and 30(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure from (i) Irving H. Picard, as trustee (“Trustee”) for the substantively
consolidated liquidation of BLMIS under the Securities Investor Protection Act and Bernard L.
Madoff, (ii) April Frielich, (iii) Barbara Picower, and (iv) Bernard L. Madoff in order to
prosecute a lawsuit in a Florida federal court against the “Picower Parties.”1 The request is
opposed by the Trustee and the Picower Parties.
For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied except to the extent that the Fox Parties
may withdraw their request for discovery under Federal Civil Rule 27(a) without prejudice.
1 	The Picower Parties include, Capital Growth Company; Decisions, Inc.; Favorite Funds; JA Primary
Limited Partnership; JA Special Limited Partnership; JAB Partnership; JEMW Partnership; JF Partnership; JFM
Investment Companies; JLN Partnership; JMP Limited Partnership; Jeffry M. Picower Special Company; Jeffry M.
Picower, P.C.; The Picower Foundation; The Picower Institute of Medical Research; The Trust f/b/o Gabrielle H.
Picower; and Barbara Picower, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Jeffry M. Picower, and as Trustee for
the Picower Foundation and for the Trust f/b/o Gabriel H. Picower.
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 3 of 13

4
BACKGROUND
The background to this adversary proceeding is described in detail in this Court’s June
23, 2014 decision, Picard v. Marshall (In re BLMIS), 511 B.R. 375 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) (the
“Injunction Decision”). The Court assumes familiarity with the Injunction Decision and limits
the discussion to the facts germane to this discovery dispute.
The Fox Parties invested with BLMIS, and the current dispute relates to the ongoing
efforts by some or all of the Fox Parties to sue the Picower Parties for the damages they allege
they suffered as a result of investing with BLMIS. The Trustee had sued the Picower Parties in
May 2009 to avoid and recover $7.2 billion in fictitious profits. Injunction Decision, 511 B.R. at
379-80. The parties ultimately settled for $5 billion.2 Id. at 380. The settlement included an
injunction (the “Permanent Injunction”) enjoining customers, creditors and anyone else from
suing the Picower Parties based on claims that arose from or related to “BLMIS or the Madoff
Ponzi scheme” and were “duplicative or derivative of the claims brought by the Trustee, or
which could have been brought by the Trustee against the Picower BLMIS Accounts or the
Picower [Parties].” Id. The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement, including the Permanent
Injunction, over the objections of Fox and Marshall, and its order was affirmed by the District
Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals. See Picard v. Fox (In re BLMIS), 429 B.R. 423
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d sub nom Fox v. Picard (In re BLMIS), 848 F. Supp. 2d 469
(S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff’d sub nom Marshall v. Picard (In re BLMIS), 740 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2014).
2 	The settlement also provided that the Picower Parties would pay $2.2 billion to the Government on account
of civil forfeiture liability under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Injunction Decision, 511 B.R. at 380. All together, the
Picower Parties paid $7.2 billion in settlement to the Trustee and the Government representing 100% of the
withdrawals the Trustee sought to avoid.
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 4 of 13

5
Intent on suing the Picower Parties notwithstanding the Permanent Injunction, the Fox
Parties sought leave, on February 5, 2014, to file a second amended complaint in their action
against the Picower Parties pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (the “Florida Action”). The proposed amended complaint purported to assert claims
under the federal securities laws, federal and Florida RICO laws, and Florida common law.
Injunction Decision, 511 B.R. at 383.
The Fox Parties’ motion for leave to amend in the Florida Action prompted the Trustee to
seek enforcement of the Permanent Injunction against the Fox Parties in this Court, id. at 386,
and the Picower Parties intervened seeking the same relief. The Court granted the motion, ruling
that the Fox Parties’ new claims were barred by the Permanent Injunction. Although relabeled as
direct claims sounding in violations of the federal securities laws, federal and state RICO laws
and Florida common law, the new claims were based on the secondary effects of the Picower
Parties’ fraudulent withdrawals from BLMIS. The proposed amended complaint did not include
any particularized allegations that the Picower Parties participated in the preparation or
dissemination of any false financial information to the customers. Id. at 394-95. The Fox Parties
have appealed from the ensuing order. (See ECF Doc. # 62.) 3
Following issuance of the Injunction Decision, the Fox Parties concluded that they
needed discovery to frame a non-derivative claim. After an unsuccessful effort to obtain the
relief through a letter to the Court, the Fox Parties filed their Motion for an Order: (i)
Authorizing Discovery From the Trustee, April Frielich, Barbara Picower, and Bernard Madoff
Pursuant to FRBP 2004, and Authorizing the Deposition of Madoff to Preserve Testimony
3 	“ECF Doc. # __” refers to documents filed in this adversary proceeding.
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 5 of 13

6
Pursuant to FRCP 27; (ii) Authorizing the Deposition of Madoff Pursuant to FRCP 30(a)(2)(B);
and (iii) Directing the Sequence of Discovery Pursuant to FRCP 26, dated July 18, 2014 (the
“Motion”) (ECF Doc. # 64). They assert that Rule 2004 authorizes the deposition and/or
production of documents from the Trustee, Madoff, Friehlich and Picower. Alternatively, they
contend that Federal Civil Rule 27 allows the Fox Parties to take Madoff’s deposition to preserve
his testimony.4 The Trustee opposes the Motion, (Brief in Opposition to Fox Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Discovery, dated August, 8, 2014 (ECF Doc. # 69)), and the Picower Parties do too. (See
Intervenors’ Opposition to the Fox Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery, dated August 8, 2014 (ECF
Doc. # 71).)
DISCUSSION
A. 	Rule 2004
Rule 2004(b) states:
The examination of an entity under this rule . . . may relate only to the
acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of
the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the
debtor’s estate, or to the debtor’s right to discharge . . . .
FED. R. BANKR. P. 2004(b) (emphasis added). The scope of Rule 2004 discovery is “very broad”
and can encompass broader discovery than is available under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. In re Recoton Corp., 307 B.R. 751, 755 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing In re Drexel
Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 123 B.R. 702, 711 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)); see also In re
Duratech Indus., Inc., 241 B.R. 283, 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). The underlying purpose of Rule
2004 is to “allow the court to gain a clear picture of the condition and whereabouts of the
bankrupt’s estate.” Keene Corp. v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 42 B.R.
4 	The other Federal Civil Rules cited by the Fox Parties relate to their request to perpetuate Madoff’s
testimony pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 27.
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 6 of 13

7
362, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (citing Cameron v. United States, 231 U.S. 710, 717 (1914)). The
party seeking Rule 2004 discovery has the burden to show good cause for the examination it
seeks, In re Express One Int’l., Inc., 217 B.R. 215, 217 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1998) (citing In re
Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 169 B.R. 130, 134 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1994)), and relief lies within the
sound discretion of the Bankruptcy Court. In re Bd. of Dirs. of Hopewell Int’l Ins. Ltd., 258 B.R.
580, 587 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Initially, the Fox Parties contend that the doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents the
Trustee from denying the requested discovery under Rule 2004 because he previously argued
successfully that the Bankruptcy Court is the proper venue for the enforcement of the Permanent
Injunction. (Motion at ¶ 11.) Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that “generally prevents a
party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory
argument to prevail in another phase.” Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 504 (2006)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has outlined several factors
to consider when determining whether judicial estoppel should apply:
First, a party’s later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier
position. Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded
in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position. . . . A third
consideration is whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent
position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment
on the opposing party if not estopped.
Id. (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001)). “Because the rule is
intended to prevent improper use of judicial machinery, judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine
invoked by a court at its discretion.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. at 750 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 7 of 13

8
The Fox Parties’ judicial estoppel argument is hard to fathom. The Trustee previously
argued that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enforce the Permanent Injunction because it
had issued the Permanent Injunction. He now maintains that the Fox Parties have failed to show
good cause for the Rule 2004 discovery they seek. One has nothing to do with the other, the
positions are not inconsistent and the judicial estoppel argument lacks merit.
As to the merits, the Fox Parties’ attempted use of Rule 2004 is improper. Despite its
broad scope, Rule 2004 has limits. An examination “as to matters having no relationship to the
bankrupt’s affairs or the administration of the estate” is improper under Rule 2004. Johns-
Manville, 42 B.R. at 364 (citing 12 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 205.15, at 2-92 – 2-94 (14th ed.
1978)). Accordingly, Rule 2004 “should not be used to obtain information for use in an
unrelated case or proceeding pending before another tribunal.” In re Coffee Cupboard, Inc., 128
B.R. 509, 516 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1991); see also Synder v. Soc’y Bank, 181 B.R. 40, 42 (S.D.Tex.
1994) (“The use of Rule 2004 to further its case in state court constitutes an abuse of Rule
2004.”).
The Fox Parties admit that they are seeking discovery “to amplify the factual allegations
[in the Florida Action] against the [Picower Parties] to show that those claims are non-
derivative.” (Motion at ¶ 19.) Although the discovery they request implicates the acts and
conduct of Madoff, who is a debtor, the Fox Parties are not seeking the discovery for use in the
Madoff or BLMIS cases, and the discovery has no bearing on the property, liabilities or financial
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 8 of 13

9
condition of either estate and will not affect the administration of either estate.5 In short, the Fox
Parties have failed to show cause, and their application is denied.6
B. 	Federal Civil Rule 27
As an alternative to Rule 2004, the Fox Parties seek to take Madoff’s deposition to
perpetuate his testimony under Federal Civil Rule 27(a) and (b), made applicable by Rule 7027
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.7 During oral argument, the Court questioned its
5 	The Court and other courts in this Circuit have been drawn into this dispute and expended considerable
time dealing with it because the Permanent Injunction prohibits the Fox Parties from alleging derivative claims.
Nevertheless, the Fox Parties’ ability to plead around the Permanent Injunction and end this Court’s involvement is
no reason to allow the Fox Parties the use of Rule 2004 for the sole purpose of improving the prospects of the action
against the Picower Parties.
6 	The cases cited by the Fox Parties do not provide any support. They involved requests under Rule 2004 (or
its predecessor Rule 205) to conduct examinations concerning claims belonging to the estate, see Recoton Corp.,
307 B.R. at 756 (allowing the Committee to proceed under Rule 2004 “to obtain information necessary to determine
whether claims beneficial to the estates exist and whether to pursue such claims.”); In re Table Talk, Inc, 51 B.R.
143, 145-46 (Bankr. Mass. 1985) (allowing Rule 2004 examination sought by the trustee where one purpose was to
examine into potential anti-trust claims), In re Mittco, Inc., 44 B.R. 35, 36-37 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1984) (permitting
creditor to conduct Rule 2004 discovery of debtor’s accountant to inquire into the possibility of obtaining assets for
the benefit of the estate); cf. In re CIS Corp., 123 B.R. 488, 490-91 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (acknowledging that Rule 2004
may be used to examine the debtor’s auditors regarding potential estate claims but concluding that the trustee had
failed to demonstrate the relevancy of the auditor’s internal auditing manuals to those potential claims), claims
against the estate, Drexel Burnham, 123 B.R. at 712 (permitting FDIC/RTC to obtain discovery under Rule 2004
based on the possible connection to their claims against the estate), or property of the estate. In re Larkham, 24 B.R.
70, 71-72 (Bankr. Vt. 1982) (permitting examination of debtors by secured creditors pursuant to former Bankruptcy
Rule 205 where debtor listed claims against banks in its schedules and refused to answer questions regarding the
claims at the meeting of creditors). The Fox Parties are not seeking Rule 2004 discovery to identify claims by or
against the BLMIS or Madoff estates or to identify property of the estate.
The Fox Parties also cited In re Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 114 B.R. 501 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1990), which
concerned a retention application, not a Rule 2004 examination, and In re Johns-Manville, 42 B.R. 362 (S.D.N.Y.
1984), in which the District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court’s Rule 2004 order directing a non-debtor to
provide certain information to the debtor as the quid pro quo for acquiring similar information from the debtor,
ruling that “the facilitation of negotiations was not a proper ground on which to order the non-voluntary production
of documents not otherwise discoverable under Rule 2004.” Id. at 365. Neither decision is relevant to the issues
raised by the Fox Parties’ application for Rule 2004 discovery.
7 Federal Civil Rule 27 provides in pertinent part:
(a) BEFORE AN ACTION IS FILED.
(1) Petition. A person who wants to perpetuate testimony about any matter cognizable in a United
States court may file a verified petition in the district court for the district where any expected
adverse party resides. . . . The petition . . . must show:
(A) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a United States court but
cannot presently bring it or cause it to be brought;
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 9 of 13

10
jurisdiction to grant a motion to perpetuate testimony for use in a proceeding over which it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In response, the Fox Parties wrote to the Court withdrawing
their Federal Civil Rule 27 discovery request so that it could be refiled in the appropriate District
Court. (See Letter, dated October 7, 2014 (ECF Doc. # 80).) The Trustee opposed the request
on three grounds: (1) the Fox Parties could not seek relief by letter and had to proceed by formal
motion, (2) the Trustee had incurred costs and fees opposing the Motion, and the Fox Parties
should not be allowed to withdraw the request for fear of losing or to gain a strategic advantage
and (3) the Court has jurisdiction to grant the request. The Trustee also reiterated his position
that the Fox Parties had failed to comply with Federal Civil Rule 27. (See Letter, dated October
9, 2014 (ECF Doc. # 81).) The Picower Parties joined in the Trustee’s objection, and demanded
that the Fox Parties reimburse the Picower Parties for their costs in opposing the Rule 27 request
as the price of withdrawal. (Letter, dated October 10, 2014 (ECF Doc. # 82).)
(B) the subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner’s interest;
(C) the facts that the petitioner wants to establish by the proposed testimony and the reasons to
perpetuate it;
(D) the names or a description of the persons whom the petitioner expects to be adverse parties
and their addresses, so far as known; and
(E) the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony of each deponent.
. . .
(b) PENDING APPEAL.
(1) In General. The court where a judgment has been rendered may, if an appeal has been taken or
may still be taken, permit a party to depose witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the
event of further proceedings in that court.
(2) Motion. The party who wants to perpetuate testimony may move for leave to take the
depositions, on the same notice and service as if the action were pending in the district court. The
motion must show:
(A) the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony of each deponent; and
(B) the reasons for perpetuating the testimony.
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 10 of 13

11
1. 	Federal Civil Rule 27(a)
The Court will permit the Fox Parties to withdraw their request for discovery under
Federal Civil Rule 27(a) without prejudice because they made it in the wrong court. Rule 27(a)
authorizes a litigant to file a petition to perpetuate testimony in a District Court where any
expected adverse party resides regarding “any matter cognizable in a United States court.”
While Federal Bankruptcy Rule 7027 extends Federal Civil Rule 27 to adversary proceedings,
the contemplated adversary proceeding must lie within the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the court
that will preside over the anticipated lawsuit. As the leading bankruptcy treatise explains:
As translated into bankruptcy terms, the requirement that the action for
which the testimony is sought to be perpetuated must be “cognizable in
any court of the United States” and that the petitioner “expects to be a
party” means that the contemplated adversary proceeding must be
cognizable by the court exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction, be it the
district court or the bankruptcy court. Thus, while the petition itself does
not require any independent grounds of federal or bankruptcy jurisdiction
to support it, there must be a showing and determination by the court that
the anticipated adversary proceeding is within the bankruptcy jurisdiction
of the court where it is to be brought.
10 ALAN N. RESNICK & HENRY J. SOMMER, COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY § 7027.02, at 7027-3
(16th ed. 2014) (emphasis added).
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) over a lawsuit
between the Fox Parties and the Picower Parties. The litigation concerns a third-party dispute
whose outcome would have no conceivable effect on either the BLMIS or the Madoff estates;
this Court’s only involvement arises from the Trustee’s efforts to enforce the Permanent
Injunction which applies to all customers and creditors. For the same reason, the Florida District
Court where the Fox Parties propose to file their amended complaint would also lack bankruptcy
jurisdiction. Furthermore, neither Fox nor Marshall have invoked bankruptcy jurisdiction in the
Florida Action. Their prior Florida complaints based subject matter jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. §§
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 11 of 13

12
1332(d) and 1337, various other non-bankruptcy federal statutes and principles of supplemental
jurisdiction. (See Declaration of Keith R. Murphy in Support of Trustee’s Application for
Enforcement of Permanent Injunction and Automatic Stay, dated Mar. 10, 2012, Ex. B at ¶¶ 3-4;
Ex. C at ¶ 16; Ex. E at ¶ 10; Ex. F at ¶ 10 (ECF Doc. # 4).) Finally, In re Residential Capital,
LLC, 480 B.R. 529 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012), cited by the Trustee in his October 9 letter, does not
support this Court’s authority. The issues in that case were whether the automatic stay barred
discovery from the debtors in a third-party action, and if it did not, whether the Court should
extend the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to accomplish that end. The decision
did not address the Bankruptcy Court’s power under Federal Civil Rule 27(a) to permit the
discovery of a debtor in a third-party action over which it lacked jurisdiction.
Since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying litigation, it lacks the
authority to grant a motion to perpetuate testimony for use in that lawsuit. As the Fox Parties
recognized in their letter to the Court, the proper procedure is to refile the motion in an
appropriate District Court. Even if the Court declined to permit the Fox Parties to withdraw the
Federal Civil Rule 27(a) request and denied the motion for the reasons stated, the denial would
be without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate court. This is precisely what the voluntary
withdrawal accomplishes. For this reason, the Picower Parties’ demand for costs and fees is
denied.
2. 	Federal Civil Rule 27(b)
The Fox Parties’ request for the same relief under Federal Civil Rule 27(b) requires only
brief comment. Federal Civil Rule 27(b) authorizes the Court in which a judgment has been
rendered to permit a party to perpetuate testimony if an appeal has or may be taken and the
testimony would be used “in the event of further proceedings in that court.” FED. R. CIV. P.
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 12 of 13

13
27(b)(1) (emphasis added). The Fox Parties have appealed from the Injunction Decision, and
this Court is the appropriate place to seek to perpetuate Madoff’s testimony under Federal Civil
Rule 27(b) provided it is or may be needed in the event of further proceedings in this Court.
Therein lies the rub. The enforcement motion that resulted in the Injunction Decision raised
purely legal issues requiring the Court to match the allegations in the Fox Parties’ amended
complaint against the language in the Permanent Injunction. The Court did not receive any
testimony, and in the event of a remand and further proceedings, it is not likely that it will
receive any testimony. Consequently, Madoff’s testimony will not be required, it need not be
perpetuated, and the application for discovery under Federal Civil Rule 27(b) is denied.
Settle order on notice.
Dated: New York, New York
October 30, 2014
/s/ Stuart M. Bernstein
STUART M. BERNSTEIN
United States Bankruptcy Judge
14-01840-smb Doc 85 Filed 10/31/14 Entered 10/31/14 07:25:15 Main Document
Pg 13 of 13