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.

[ORAL ARGUMENT 

REQUESTED]

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONIN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE 

REGARDING ALLEGED VICTIMS, COUNTERPARTIES, OR HARM

The basic purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to eliminate trial by ambush. 

Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., Case No. 15-cv-62359-BLOOM/Valle, 2016 WL 4433713, at *2-3 (S.D. 

Fla. Apr. 28, 2016) (noting that the Federal Rules “specifically guard against ‘trial by ambush’”). But 

an ambush is exactly what the SEC is attempting here, at least with respect to its demand for 

disgorgement—the most significant remedy it seeks.

The SEC’s Complaint and Initial Disclosures demand that Mr. Keener be ordered to 

disgorge north of $20 million. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 2, 8, 16, Sec. V; Ex. 1 (7.20.20 Pl’s Initial Discl.) at 3. 

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed strict rules on when the SEC is allowed to seek 

disgorgement. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the SEC may only seek disgorgement if it 

can demonstrate that (1) it can return disgorgement to wronged investors for their benefit and (2) 

the disgorgement amount only includes net profits, after “deducting legitimate expenses.” See Liu v. 

SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936, 1946-1948 (2020). 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 1 of 15
2

As a result, because the SEC demanded disgorgement here, it was obligated to disclose in 

discovery the information it intends to use to meet these burdens under Liu. Namely, it was 

required to disclose, and to respond to discovery requests about, its theories and evidence as to 

which investors were harmed and in what amounts, as well as its calculation of Mr. Keener’s net 

profits. 

However, the SEC has failed to disclose any of this information, either as part of its Rule 26 

disclosures or in response to Mr. Keener’s discovery requests. The SEC chose not to disclose a 

single victim or theory of harm, or any evidence whatsoever to support any theory that Mr. Keener’s 

investments caused harm to any particular investor.

1

 Moreover, the SEC admitted that the $21.5 

million figure in the Complaint did not account for Mr. Keener’s business expenses but chose not to 

offer any new calculation that did. In fact, the SEC’s in-house economics expert, who offered only 

rebuttal opinions in response to Mr. Keener’s experts, stated that no one at the SEC has actually 

attempted to calculate the disgorgement amount. Ex. 2 (7.27.21 Taveras Dep. Tr.) at 254:18 – 255:5. 

However, she said that she “may be asked” to do so in the future and that she “reserve[s] the right 

to offer an opinion about disgorgement during the remedies phase of this case.” Ex. 3 (7.19.21 

Taveras Report), ¶ 21.

The SEC’s approach is unfair and in clear violation of its discovery obligations. There is no 

separate “remedies phase” of this case. The Court entered one calendar in this case for all fact and 

expert discovery, and both fact and expert discovery are now complete. ECF Nos. 19, 41. If the 

SEC is permitted to delay providing the basic information on which it will rely to carry its 

disgorgement-related burdens under Liu, Mr. Keener will be deprived of the ability to question the 

1 In fact, this is likely because, as Mr. Keener demonstrates in his contemporaneously filed Motion for Summary 

Judgment, no one was harmed at all by the conduct alleged in the Complaint. See Def.’s Mot. for Summary Judgment at 

4-6 (explaining that Mr. Keener invests his own money in convertible note investments in microcap companies in need 

of financing, and the terms of such investments are freely negotiated with the companies and disclosed in public filings). 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 2 of 15
3

SEC about its methods, to test its assumptions and calculations, and to develop his own responses 

to the SEC’s contentions. This cannot be the outcome.

For instance, the SEC did not answer any of the following foundational questions during 

discovery:

• Who are the specific investors who were harmed by Mr. Keener’s investments; how 

did Mr. Keener’s investments cause them harm; and in what amounts were they 

harmed?

• What are the “ill-gotten gains” to be disgorged? Which specific transactions are part 

of the disgorgement calculation and why?

• What are the legitimate expenses to be deducted?

The SEC had every opportunity to properly disclose the necessary information to support its 

disgorgement demand during discovery. It chose not to do so. Its refusal is unjustified and highly 

prejudicial. As a result, and as a sanction for violating its obligations, the SEC should be prohibited 

from introducing any evidence not already disclosed to support its request for disgorgement. 

Specifically, it should not be able to introduce any evidence about the alleged victims or harm 

purportedly caused by Mr. Keener’s investments—and it should be precluded from offering any 

expert or summary opinion about a proper net profits calculation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); 

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Tyco Integrated Sec., LLC, Case No. 13-CIV-80371-

BLOOM/Valle, 2015 WL 11251736, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2015) (precluding the addition of two 

fact witnesses to a party’s trial witness list where the identities of those witnesses had not been 

adequately disclosed during discovery).

I. BACKGROUND 

The SEC’s Complaint seeks disgorgement, and in its Rule 26 initial disclosures, the SEC 

estimated Mr. Keener’s “net ill-gotten gains” to be $20 million. See ECF No. 1 at Sec. V; Ex. 1, at 2-

3 (“The Commission estimates [the disgorgement] amount to be $20 million.”). Accordingly, Mr. 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 3 of 15
4

Keener sought discovery from the SEC of the basis for its 8-figure disgorgement demand. In 

particular, Mr. Keener sought discovery to assess whether the SEC’s disgorgement demand 

complied with the parameters set forth by the Supreme Court in Liu v. SEC—namely, what profits 

were included, what business expenses were excluded, and whether any investors were harmed by 

Mr. Keener’s transactions. However, the SEC never disclosed any of this basic information over 

one year of discovery.

A. The SEC Failed to Respond to any Written Discovery Concerning its the 

Disgorgement Request.

Plaintiff served its Initial Disclosures on July 20, 2020, asserting that it would seek 

“monetary relief in the form of disgorgement” and that the disgorgement would be based on the 

“amount of net ill-gotten gains” that Mr. Keener allegedly obtained through his investment activity. 

See Ex. 1 at 3. In its disclosures, the SEC “estimate[d]” Mr. Keener’s “net ill-gotten gains” to be $20 

million but “reserve[d] its right to amend these calculations and methods based on discovery to be 

conducted in this case.” Id. The SEC never amended these calculations. 

Mr. Keener then issued document requests and requests for admission seeking the basis of 

the SEC’s disgorgement calculation set forth in its Initial Disclosures. See Ex. 4 (9.11.20 Def.’s First 

Request for Production of Documents), ¶ 33(d)-(f) (requesting documents and information related 

to the amount of relief sought as disgorgement, the $20 million figure listed in the SEC’s Initial 

Disclosures, and the contention in the SEC’s Complaint that Mr. Keener made “$21.5 million in 

profits”); Ex. 5 (3.9.21 Def.’s Second Set of Requests for Admission), ¶ 12. Mr. Keener also issued 

interrogatories seeking a comprehensive explanation of what transactions were at issue in the SEC’s 

disgorgement claim. Ex. 6 (6.9.21 Def.’s Fourth Set of Interrogs.), ¶ 18.

The only information the SEC revealed as a result of any of these requests was that the 

SEC’s allegation regarding Mr. Keener’s profits was based on one spreadsheet prepared by one of 

Mr. Keener’s assistants, which it admitted did not account for business expenses. See Ex. 7 (4.8.21

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 4 of 15
5

Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Second Set of Requests for Admission), ¶ 11 (citing JMJ-SEC-008-000380 as the 

sole basis for its allegation regarding Mr. Keener’s profits); id., ¶ 12 (admitting that JMJ-SEC-008-

000380 did not account for Mr. Keener’s business expenses); see also Ex. 15 (JMJ-SEC-008-000380). 

This spreadsheet is designated as “Notes” and contains blank fields and figures described as 

“estimated.” The SEC never provided more information to support its multi-million-dollar

disgorgement demand, and never identified what specific transactions were at issue—i.e., which 

specific sales of which issuer’s stock—and never attempted to exclude business expenses from the 

calculation.

Mr. Keener further issued discovery requests seeking an explanation of whether the SEC 

alleged there were any “victims” of Mr. Keener’s conduct, the identity of those alleged victims, and 

the full basis for the allegation that those persons were in fact victims, including the specific extent 

of their harm. See, e.g., Ex. 8 (9.29.20 Def. Requests for Admission), ¶ 58; Ex. 9 (12.23.20 Def. First 

Set of Interrogs.), ¶ 1; Ex. 6, ¶¶ 17-18. The SEC asserted a plethora of objections—including that 

such information was “irrelevant” and “premature.” Finally, the SEC conceded that this 

information was discoverable, but the only information the SEC revealed was that it alleged the 

“victims” were “the counter-parties to the sales of newly-issued stocks that [Mr. Keener] sold after 

making conversions of convertible notes.” Ex. 10 (1.22.21 Pl.’s Resp. to Def. First Set of 

Interrogs.), ¶ 1; Ex. 11 (7.16.21 Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Fourth Set of Interrogs), ¶¶ 17-18. That was the 

entirety of the disclosure. The SEC never identified any specific transactions it alleged resulted in 

harm; it never identified any particular counter-party it alleged was harmed; it never identified the 

amount by which it alleged anyone was harmed; and it never even identified how anyone was 

allegedly harmed.

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 5 of 15
6

B. The SEC Failed to Identify Any Witness Concerning its Disgorgement 

Request.

Nor did the SEC identify any witness who was able to testify about the SEC’s disgorgement 

demand during discovery. The SEC identified an SEC market surveillance specialist named Robert 

Nesbitt as someone who may testify about “the SEC’s ability to identify counterparties to sales in 

the OTC and other markets.” See Ex. 12 (6.10.21 Pl. Second Supp. Initial Discl.). But it became 

clear at his deposition that Mr. Nesbitt had not looked at a single one of Mr. Keener’s transactions 

and had not identified a single so-called counterparty. See Ex. 13 (6.25.21 Nesbitt Dep. Tr.) at 47:15-

17 (“I have done no analysis for this case, you know, so—for this case I have done nothing.”). 

More importantly, he had nothing to say about whether any counterparty experienced any harm 

from any of Mr. Keener’s sales. See id. at 104:8-9; 13-20 (harm is “not something that I would 

determine”; “I typically do not get involved in those issues”). All he could testify about was a 

complicated matching exercise that he had used in the past to identify counterparties to transactions 

in the market for over-the-counter securities—an exercise that by his own admission required reams 

of data that he had no idea whether it had been collected or produced in this case. See id. 55:3-14; 

63:17-68:17 (explaining the process through which Mr. Nesbitt identifies sales, including looking at 

blue sheets, brokerage account statements, trade blotters, order information, and trade inquiry 

reports). 

The only other witness the SEC identified in discovery was Dr. Carmen Taveras, an in-house 

economist, who was first disclosed as a “summary witness.” See Ex. 14 (3.10.21 Pl. Supp. Initial 

Discl.) (“May be called as a summary witness regarding voluminous records relating to some or all of 

the following: Defendant’s securities transactions, tax records, and expense records.”). But when 

deposed, Dr. Taveras admitted that she had not prepared any summaries and had no knowledge of 

what summaries she would be providing testimony on. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 35:9-14, 47:7-22, 53:12-54:8.

Moreover, Dr. Taveras made clear that neither she nor anyone else at the SEC had even attempted 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 6 of 15
7

to calculate the appropriate disgorgement amount. See id. at 254:18 – 255:5 (“Setting aside the 

prejudgment interest, what is the amount of the ill-gotten gains from the activities ser forth in this 

complaint?” “You mean the number?” “Yes.” “I don’t know.” “To your knowledge, does anyone at 

the SEC know that number?” “No.”). 

The SEC did not offer a single affirmative expert in this case—that is, the SEC offered no 

expert to support its demand for disgorgement, to calculate a disgorgement amount, to identify any 

harm caused by any of Mr. Keener’s transactions, or to support its position on any other issue in the 

case. On the Court’s deadline for disclosure of rebuttal experts, the SEC first disclosed that Dr. 

Taveras would also serve as an expert for the SEC, but that the scope of her testimony was limited 

to rebutting the “substantive issues” raised by Mr. Keener’s expert reports.

2

 In her rebuttal report, 

she asserted that she “may be asked to assist in calculating disgorgement,” but that she had not yet 

conducted any such calculation. See Ex. 3, ¶ 11. The SEC did not provide any such calculation by 

the end of discovery. Nor did the SEC provide any further information regarding any alleged 

victims of, counterparties to, or harm resulting from Mr. Keener’s investment activity.

II. ARGUMENT

To avoid trial by ambush, all parties “must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to 

the other parties” names of individuals likely to have discoverable information, a copy or description 

of all “documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things” that the disclosing party 

may use to support its claims or defenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a); Waite 2016 WL 4433713, at *3. 

If a party does not comply with its Rule 26 obligations, Rule 37 provides that the party cannot be 

allowed to “use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a 

trial.” The only exception is if the failure to comply was substantially justified or harmless. See Fed. 

2 The substance of Dr. Taveras’ rebuttal expert report is the subject of a contemporaneously filed Motion to Exclude 

Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Carmen Taveras. Any testimony regarding harm that the SEC seeks to provide through 

rebuttal expert testimony is improper and addressed in that motion. 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 7 of 15
8

R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); National Union Fire Ins. Co., 2015 WL 11251736, at *2. The non-disclosing party 

bears the burden of demonstrating that its failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless. 

Mitchell v. Ford Motor Co., 318 Fed. Appx. 821, 824 (11th Cir. 2009).

A. The SEC Failed to Produce Information Required Under Rule 26(a).

As stated above, Rule 26(a) requires a party to voluntarily furnish all information that a party 

may use to support its claims or defenses. Accordingly, the SEC was obligated to furnish the 

evidence it intended to rely on to support its disgorgement demand, including in particular any 

evidence to support its factual assertion that the counterparties to Mr. Keener’s sale transactions are 

“victims.” Kline v. Berry, 287 F.R.D. 75, 80 (D.D.C. 2012) (ordering plaintiff to furnish documents 

that can support a factual statement plaintiff made in support of her allegations). However, the SEC 

has refused to disclose any of the evidence that it will use to carry its burden on this point. After Liu, 

this information is particularly salient because the SEC’s claim for disgorgement will fail unless it 

demonstrates that any disgorged amount will be “for victims.” See Liu, 140 S. Ct. at 1945-46. 

As explained below, the SEC cannot demonstrate that such failure to disclose was 

substantially justified or harmless, and therefore any evidence the SEC may proffer in the future 

concerning alleged victims, or alleged harm to downstream investors must be excluded under Rule 

37. See Disa v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., Case No. 8:14–cv–01915–T–27AEP, 2016 WL 7177517, at 

*2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2016) (excluding evidence not produced during discovery); Beaubran v. Geico 

Gen. Ins. Co., Case No. 16-24205-Civ-Cooke/Torres, 2017 WL 3025852, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 

2017) (same).

B. The SEC’s Conduct Was Not Substantially Justified

A party’s nondisclosure is not “substantially justified” when there is no dispute as to whether 

the party complied with its discovery obligations. See Waite, 2016 WL 4433713, at *2. There is no 

justification for producing new information to support key issues in the case after the close of 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 8 of 15
9

discovery. See id. at *2-3; Beaubran 2017 WL 3025852, at *2-3 (production of relevant material five 

months after the party’s initial disclosures were due despite having possession of the material since 

the outset of the litigation was not substantially justified). 

The SEC did not comply with its clear discovery obligations under Rule 26. The SEC 

conceded that it was required to disclose information about its disgorgement demand under Rule 26, 

yet it never provided any net profits calculation. Ex. 1. Moreover, the SEC conceded that 

information concerning its disgorgement demand was relevant and discoverable in responses to Mr. 

Keener’s discovery requests on this topic. See Ex. 10, ¶ 1; Ex. 11 ¶¶ 17-18. However, the SEC failed 

to provide any information other than the conclusory assertion that the “counterparties” to Mr. 

Keener’s sales were “victims.” See id. Without any explanation or justification, it chose not to 

disclose any evidence that would support that assertion—it chose not to identify a single 

counterparty or explain why or how a single counterparty was harmed. Therefore, it must be 

precluded from introducing such evidence at or after trial. 

Nor was Mr. Keener’s request for such information premature. This litigation is not 

bifurcated into separate liability and remedies phases. The SEC did not ask for, and the Court did 

not set, any separate calendar for disclosures and discovery related to remedies. Instead, one 

calendar was entered, which directed that all fact and expert discovery in this case ended on August 

2, 2021. See ECF Nos. 19, 41. Accordingly, the only time for the disclosure of evidence relevant to 

the SEC’s claims for relief was during discovery. Cf. SEC v. Megalli, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-3783-

AT, 2015 WL 11216815 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 17, 2015) (refusing to bifurcate case “at the summary 

judgment phase”). 

C. The SEC’s Conduct Was Not Harmless.

Failure to disclose cannot be “harmless” when it causes any prejudice to the opposing party. 

See Hinds v. American Sec. Ins. Co., Case No. 16-CV-20780-Cooke/Torres, 2016 WL 8677901, at *3 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 9 of 15
10

(S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2016) (citing S.O.S. Resource Services, Inc. v. Bowers, Case No. 14-Civ-22789-

Cooke/Torres, 2015 WL 6735540, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2015)). A party faces prejudice when it is

deprived of a meaningful opportunity to test, analyze or rebut new evidence. See Beaubrun, 2017 WL 

3025852 at *3 (finding harm where belated disclosure prevented opposing party of an opportunity to 

depose witness about new evidence); Global Dig. Sols., Inc. v. Grupo Rontan Electro Metalurgica, S.A., 

Case No. 18-80106-cv-Middlebrooks, 2020 WL 8816214, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2020) (party would 

suffer prejudice if non-disclosing party were able to present expert testimony on damages without 

having provided an expert report during discovery); Waite, 2016 WL 4433713, at *3 (party would 

suffer prejudice if new evidence were disclosed only days before the relevant depositions were to 

take place). 

The SEC’s failure to disclose information critical to its requested relief—and therefore, 

crucial to Mr. Keener’s defense—is by definition prejudicial to Mr. Keener. Courts routinely 

exclude damages information that a party failed to provide in discovery, because such failure cannot 

be harmless. See, e.g., Global Dig. Sols., Inc., 2020 WL 8816214, at *3-4 (finding that a party would 

“suffer substantial prejudice” if the non-disclosing party was able to present evidence on damages 

not provided during discovery); see also Roman v. MSL Cap., LLC, Case No. EDCV 17-2066 JGB 

(SPx), 2019 WL 1449499, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019) (granting a motion in limine to preclude 

the introduction of injuries “not already identified through disclosures, written discovery, or 

evidence testified to at a deposition”). Such nondisclosure is particularly prejudicial where, as here, 

the fact and expert discovery deadlines have passed. See Hinds, 2016 WL 8677901, at *3 (failure to 

produce responsive expert opinions to opposing party “effectively render[s] any trial testimony made 

by the expert a surprise”) (emphasis in original). 

Despite over six months of discovery requests seeking clarifying information about alleged 

victims of and harm resulting from Mr. Keener’s investment activity, the SEC failed to identify any 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 10 of 15
11

“victims” other than a single reference to “counter-parties to the sales of newly issued stocks that 

[Mr. Keener] sold after making conversions of convertible notes.” Ex. 10, ¶ 1. But it has never 

identified how any “counterparties” were allegedly victimized (or even who the counterparties are). 

If the SEC were permitted to introduce novel theories and information regarding alleged victims and 

harm at trial, Mr. Keener would be substantially prejudiced.

The SEC’s failure to disclose such critical information was not inadvertent. In both her 

Rebuttal Report and her deposition, Dr. Taveras, an SEC employee, admitted that the SEC had not 

yet calculated disgorgement and that it had no intention of performing such a calculation until some 

indeterminate point in the future. See Ex. 3, ¶ 11 (“I understand that the SEC has not made a claim 

for disgorgement and that such a claim would be made after liability has been determined. I may be 

asked to assist in calculating disgorgement, and I would rely on more than just the ‘JMJ Income 

Statement – Notes’ to do so.”); Ex. 2 at 254:18 – 255:5 (“Setting aside the prejudgment interest, 

what is the amount of the ill-gotten gains from the activities ser forth in this complaint?” “You 

mean the number?” “Yes.” “I don’t know.” “To your knowledge, does anyone at the SEC know that 

number?” “No.”). Similarly, Mr. Nesbitt’s deposition revealed that he had not looked at any of Mr. 

Keener’s transactions or identified a single counterparty, suggesting that any identification of specific 

counterparties would be completed at some unknown later date. See Ex. 13 at 47:15-17 (“I have 

done no analysis for this case, you know, so—for this case I have done nothing.”). The SEC made a 

calculated decision that it could withhold this key information and instead ambush Mr. Keener at or 

after trial. The Federal Rules prohibit such conduct. See Waite, 2016 WL 4433713, at *2; Dorvil v. 

Nationstar Mortg., LLC, Case No. 17-23193-CIV-MARTINEZ/ OTAZO-REYES, 2020 WL 

9065875, at *1-2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2020) (the Federal Rules and “tenets of fairness” require parties 

to be put on notice as to their potential liability and exposure “such that they can adequately defend 

their case”). 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 11 of 15
12

III. CONCLUSION

Information regarding how the SEC intends to comply with Liu –i.e., how it intends to 

calculate net profits and how it intends to prove there are any alleged victims or harm resulting from 

any of Mr. Keener’s investment activity—is central to this case because the SEC chose to request 

disgorgement. The SEC’s failure to provide any of this information during discovery puts Mr. 

Keener in an impossible position—the SEC effectively seeks to prevent Mr. Keener from putting up 

any meaningful defense with respect to the amount of disgorgement. The Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure apply to the SEC too, and do not allow this outcome. Thus, Mr. Keener respectfully 

requests that the SEC be precluded from introducing at or after trial any evidence about the alleged 

victims or harm purportedly caused by Mr. Keener’s investments, or any net profits calculation, 

including but not limited to any expert or summary opinion that witnesses were not prepared to 

offer during discovery on these topics.

Dated: August 13, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

/s/ Benjamin G. Greenberg

Benjamin G. Greenberg 

Florida Bar No. 192732

greenbergb@gtlaw.com

333 SE 2nd Avenue Suite 4400

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 579-0850

Facsimile: (305) 579-0717

-andBUCKLEY 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

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 12 of 15
13

Facsimile: (202) 349-8080

cregan@buckleyfirm.com

vviswanatha@buckleyfirm.com

Counsel for Defendant Justin W. Keener

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 13 of 15
14

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 August 11, 2021 and August 12, 2021. Opposing 

counsel informed counsel for Mr. Keener that Plaintiff cannot agree or consent to the relief 

requested herein.

/s/ Benjamin G. Greenberg

Benjamin G. Greenberg

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 14 of 15
15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

Motion in Limine To Exclude Any Evidence Regarding Alleged Victims, Counterparties, or Harm 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

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

This, the 13th day of August, 2021

/s/ Benjamin G. Greenberg

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 15 of 15