In deciding whether to lift the PSLRA stay, Judge William H. Pauley III (S.D.N.Y.) (Clinton Class of ‘98) considered Plaintiffs “claim that because Defendants have previously produced much of the requested material to the SEC, Defendants could easily produce the same material to Plaintiffs.” But, he found that “this consideration is irrelevant,” as “there is no exception to the discovery stay for cases in which discovery would not burden the defendant.” Instead, “the proper inquiry under the PSLRA is whether the plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced by the stay, not whether the defendant would be burdened by lifting the stay.”
Lifting the stay DEE-NYED. Sorry -- I can’t find a picture of Judge Pauley anywhere after spending an exhausting 32 seconds looking for one. You can send me one if you want, but of course I won't get it until Friday night -- and I do not post judicial pictures after Happy Hour.
You can read In re Smith Barney Transfer Litigation, issued June 26, 2006, at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42646.
Nugget: “Plaintiffs' have identified no "prejudice" beyond the routine delay arising from the PSLRA stay. Because no exceptional circumstances are present in this case, discovery will remain stayed as to Plaintiffs' securities claims.”