1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-21254-BLOOM/LOUIS 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JUSTIN W. KEENER D/B/A JMJ 

FINANCIAL, 

Defendant. 

DEFENDANT JUSTIN W. KEENER’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

Defendant Justin W. Keener (“Mr. Keener”) moves to strike part of the SEC’s Reply in 

Support of Its Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 101, “Reply SOF”), filed on September 7, 

2021. Specifically, Mr. Keener requests that the Court strike Section A, “SEC’s Reply to 

Defendant’s Counterstatement of Disputed Facts.” As explained in more detail below, that section 

purports to add additional evidence and argument in support of the alleged facts set forth in the 

SEC’s initial Statement of Material Facts. Such tactics are not authorized by the Local Rules of this 

Court and would improperly deprive Mr. Keener of an opportunity to respond to the SEC’s 

assertions. 

1. On July 21, 2021, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 54) allowing each party to file a 

statement of material facts totaling 15 pages. 

2. The SEC filed its Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 67) on August 13, 2021 with 73 

paragraphs over 15 pages. 

3. Mr. Keener filed his Opposition to the SEC’s Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 91) on 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2021 Page 1 of 6
2 

August 31, 2021. Mr. Keener’s Opposition responded to the SEC’s 73 paragraphs. Local Rule 

56.1(b)(2) also allows an opponent to set forth additional facts that he contends are material. 

Accordingly, Mr. Keener set forth 25 additional facts. 

4. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) governs the form of a Reply Statement of Material Facts. This Rule 

requires a movant to respond to any additional facts set forth in the opponent’s Statement of 

Material Facts. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(A)-(B). But this Rule does not authorize a movant to add 

further support to the facts set forth in its initial Statement of Material Facts. 

5. The SEC’s Reply SOF contains two sections. In Section A, the SEC seeks to add 9 pages of 

additional support for 37 of the 73 paragraphs set forth in its initial Statement of Material Facts. 

The SEC also attached nearly 150 pages of additional exhibits cited in Section A. In Section B, the 

SEC responds to Mr. Keener’s additional facts. 

6. Section A of the SEC’s Reply SOF is improper because it does not respond to Mr. Keener’s 

additional facts, and instead seeks to add support for the facts set forth in the SEC’s initial 

Statement of Material Facts. The SEC’s conduct in Section A is not authorized by the Local Rules 

and would circumvent the 15-page limit this Court previously set on the initial Statement of Material 

Facts, by 9 pages. Moreover, the SEC’s tactic prevents Mr. Keener from responding to the new 

citations and arguments set forth in Section A, and the new exhibits cited in that Section. 

7. Under Local Rule 56.1(d), “the Court may strike” any Statement of Material Facts that “does 

not comply with this rule.” S.D. Fla. Local Rule 56.1(d). Section A of the SEC’s Reply SOF should 

be struck for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1. See, e.g., Shannon v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 

2018 WL 11251005, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2018) (striking plaintiff’s reply statement of facts to the 

extent it “supplement[ed] its initial statement of facts” because defendant “had no opportunity to 

respond to them” and finding otherwise would “allow [plaintiff] to circumvent the page limits”). 

8. For these reasons, Mr. Keener respectfully requests that Section A of the SEC’s Reply SOF 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2021 Page 2 of 6
3 

be struck. 

9. On September 8, 2021, counsel for Mr. Keener asked counsel for the SEC whether it would 

identify the authority it believed justified Section A or agree to the relief requested herein. On 

September 10, 2021, because counsel for the SEC had not yet provided an answer on either issue, 

counsel for Mr. Keener reiterated its request and asked for a response by Monday, September 13, 

2021, due to the time-sensitive nature of the requested relief, which impacts a pleading currently 

pending before the Court. Counsel for the SEC did not respond by September 13, 2021. 

Dated: September 14, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 

/s/ Benjamin G. Greenberg _________ 

Benjamin G. Greenberg 

Florida Bar No. 192732 

333 SE 2nd Avenue Suite 4400 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 579-0850 

Facsimile: (305) 579-0717 

greenbergb@gtlaw.com

BUCKLEY LLP

Christopher F. Regan (pro hac vice) 

Veena Viswanatha (pro hac vice) 

Adam Miller (pro hac vice) 

2001 M Street NW, Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 349-8000 

Facsimile: (202) 349-8080 

cregan@buckleyfirm.com

vviswanatha@buckleyfirm.com

amiller@buckleyfirm.com

Counsel for Defendant Justin W. Keener

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2021 Page 3 of 6
4 

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), I hereby certify that counsel for Mr. Keener has 

conferred with opposing counsel in good faith on September 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and 

September 10, 2021 via email. Opposing counsel did not consent to the relief requested herein. 

/s/ Benjamin G. Greenberg 

Benjamin G. Greenberg 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2021 Page 4 of 6
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served via ECF a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Defendant Justin W. Keener’s Motion to Strike to the following: 

Joshua E. Braunstein (Special Bar No. A5502640) 

Antony Richard Petrilla (Special Bar No. A5502641) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

100 F Street NE 

Washington, DC 20549 

Telephone: (202) 551-8470 

Braunsteinj@sec.gov 

Petrillaa@sec.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

This, the 14th day of September, 2021 

/s/ Benjamin G. Greenberg 

Benjamin G. Greenberg 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2021 Page 5 of 6
6 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-21254-BLOOM/LOUIS 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JUSTIN W. KEENER D/B/A JMJ 

FINANCIAL, 

Defendant. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

On consideration of the Motion to Strike filed by Defendant Justin W. Keener d/b/a JMJ 

Financial (“Mr. Keener”), and finding that good cause exists, the Court hereby ORDERS AND 

ADJUDGES as follows: 

Section A of Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Reply in Support of 

Its Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 101), titled “SEC’s Reply to Defendant’s 

Counterstatement of Disputed Facts,” is STRICKEN. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida 

this ____ day of ____________________. 

______________________________ 

BETH BLOOM 

United States District Judge 

Copies furnished to: All Counsel of Record 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2021 Page 6 of 6