Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02287/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02287-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:0077 Securities Fraud

---

1

18cv2287-GPC(MSB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLOCKVEST, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2287-GPC(MSB)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 

CONTINUE FINAL PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE [ECF NO. 111] AND

(2) AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER 

REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission filed an 

“Unopposed Ex Parte Application to Continue Final Pretrial Conference.” (ECF No. 111.) 

In support, Plaintiff states that “preparation for the final pretrial conference, and the 

associated filings deadlines that precede it, will require work that [] would be difficult to 

perform under the current circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak and associated 

mandatory stay-home orders.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff further references its two pending 

dispositive motions [ECF Nos. 93, 96], and argues that continuing the Pretrial 

Conference “until after those motions are resolved would serve the interests of 

efficiency for the parties and the Court.” (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that Defendant 

Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-DEB Document 112 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2287-GPC(MSB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

does not oppose its request. (Id.) Plaintiff thus asks the Court to vacate the May 29, 

2020 Final Pretrial Conference and set a new Pretrial Conference forty-five days after 

either the entry of an order on either of the SEC’s pending motions, or of the lifting of 

the state and local stay-home orders, whichever is later. (Id. at 4.)

Having considered Plaintiff’s unopposed motion, and having consulted with the 

chambers of District Judge Curiel, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS in part the 

motion. Accordingly, the Court CONTNUES the Final Pretrial Conference currently 

scheduled for May 29, 2020, until July 31, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court therefore 

amends its Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-trial Proceedings [ECF 

No. 68] as follows:

1. Pursuant to Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, 

the parties are excused from the requirement of Local Rule 16.1(f)(2)(a); no Memoranda 

of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed.

2. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by July 2, 2020. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements 

could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

3. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by 

July 10, 2020. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 

stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 

exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for 

impeachment. The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 

16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial 

Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of 

the proposed pretrial conference order.

4. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 

arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By July 17, 2020, 

plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order for 

review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with plaintiff’s 

Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-DEB Document 112 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2287-GPC(MSB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both 

parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order.

5. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 

other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and 

lodged with the assigned district judge by July 24, 2020, and shall be in the form 

prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6).

6. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 

Gonzalo P. Curiel on July 31, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court will set a trial date during the 

pretrial conference. The Court will also schedule a motion in limine hearing date during 

the pretrial conference.

7. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 

and magistrate judge.

8. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 

within 30 days of verdict in the case.

9. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good 

cause shown.

10. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed 

for the same motion day shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length, per party, 

without leave of the judge who will hear the motion. No reply memorandum shall 

exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. Briefs and memoranda 

exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents and a table of 

authorities cited.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-DEB Document 112 Filed 04/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3