UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT

Plaintiffs, Edwin Garrison, et al. (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants, Thomas Brady, Gisele 

Bündchen, Stephen Curry, Lawrence David, Golden State Warriors, LLC (“GSW”), Udonis 

Haslem, William Trevor Lawrence, Shohei Ohtani, Kevin O’Leary, David Ortiz, Naomi Osaka

(collectively, the “Non-FTX Defendants”), and Sam Bankman-Fried (collectively, the “Appearing

Defendants”)1 (Appearing Defendants together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), submit this Joint 

Scheduling Report pursuant to S.D. Fla. Local Rule 16.1(b), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(f)(3).

The Parties conferred on April 28, 2023. The Non-FTX Defendants have moved to stay all 

discovery pending resolution of their pending motions to dismiss (ECF 162). With respect to the 

issue of jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs’ position is as proposed in their pending motion for 

1 Defendants Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, Nishad Singh, and Dan Friedberg have not yet 

appeared. Defendant Shaquille O’Neal has recently retained counsel Colson LLP and Latham & 

Watkins, LLP, and will be making his initial appearance today. Because he had not yet obtained 

representation, Mr. O’Neal did not participate in the Parties’ Rule 26 conference.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 1 of 27
2

leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery (ECF 163). With respect to the issue of merits discovery, 

Plaintiffs take no position and leave it to the Court’s discretion what discovery, if any, should be 

permitted pending a decision on the motions to dismiss or any transfer ordered by the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. If the Court decides that discovery should be stayed pending the 

motions to dismiss, then the Parties suggest that the case schedule should be set either after the 

resolution of those motions or upon MDL consolidation, if that occurs. In the event the Court 

denies a stay of discovery, or prefers to have a schedule set notwithstanding any such stay of 

discovery, the Parties’ report below provides the respective proposed schedules by the Plaintiffs 

and the Non-FTX Defendants. The Parties report as follows:

I. Plaintiffs’ Statement

The FTX disaster is the largest financial fraud in US history. The former FTX CEO, 

Bankman-Fried, is facing numerous criminal charges and the new CEO—who helped wind down 

Enron—concluded that the FTX fraud surpassed Enron. Billions of dollars have been stolen from 

investors across the globe. 

FTX was a centralized cryptocurrency platform which specialized in derivatives and 

leveraged products. It filed for bankruptcy protection in November 2022 and will be involved in 

federal bankruptcy proceedings for many years. There is no guarantee that any of the victims will 

be able to see any recovery from those proceedings.

This is a proposed class action brought on behalf of a Global Class, a Nationwide Class,

and State Subclasses, of all individuals offered or sold, deceptive FTX Yield Bearing Accounts

(“YBAs”) or FTX’s native cryptocurrency token (“FTT”), which were admittedly marketed and 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 2 of 27
3

promoted by the Defendants.2 Plaintiffs allege—as the SEC and numerous state securities 

regulators have similarly concluded in analogous contexts with platforms such as BlockFi,3

Voyager,4 and Celsius,

5 who all offered these same accounts and native cryptocurrency platform 

tokens—that these YBAs and FTT are all unregistered “securities” as defined by applicable 

securities law. 

Defendants’ participation and/or actions in FTX’s offerings and sales of YBAs and FTT 

violated various provisions of state securities laws and deceptive trade practices statutes, including 

those of Florida, which law may be applied nationwide as Florida is the situs of FTX’s domestic 

headquarters and Florida’s FSIPA and FDUTPA statutes were enacted to regulate the conduct of 

entities based within its borders so that such companies would not utilize the State as a hub for 

their global wrongdoing. Plaintiffs seek certification of a Global Class, a Nationwide Class, and a 

Florida State Subclass under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and/or (c)(4) of the FRCP, which includes 

seeking a declaration that the YBAs and FTT are unlawfully sold unregistered securities, which 

entitles Plaintiffs and class members to full rescissionary damages. Defendants’ substantial 

2 In further support of Plaintiffs’ pending Expedited Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional 

Discovery, and to Amend Their Complaint With Any Facts Arising From Such Discovery, [ECF 

No. 163], filed on April 26, 2023, amongst the anticipated revisions and additions to the anticipated 

Amended Consolidated Complaint that Plaintiffs intend to file at the close of jurisdictional 

discovery will be allegations clarifying that Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants accountable for their 

promotion of the FTX Platform and their necessary involvement in promoting YBAs and FTT, 

which Plaintiffs allege are also securities that were required to be registered. See, e.g., ECF No. 16 

¶¶ 170–172; see also, e.g., ECF No. 16-1 (Preliminary Expert Report of Paul Sibenik of 

CipherBlade Blockchain Investigation Agency).

3 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-26 (accessed May 8, 2023).

4 https://coingeek.com/6-us-regulators-crackdown-on-voyager-digital-over-interest-bearingaccounts/ (accessed May 8, 2023).

5

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved

=2ahUKEwjvjNvg27j7AhWfRTABHfwzDe4QFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.

gov%2Foag%2Fnewsreleases21%2FCelsius-Order9.17.21.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0Zd94fuhFSsOoGKM-vQ3YI (accessed May 8, 2023).

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 3 of 27
4

participation in the offer or sale of these unregistered YBAs and FTT, which were offered or sold 

from the State of Florida by FTX, renders Defendants jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs and 

all Class Members for the full measure of damages resulting from their offer orsale. These specific 

claims have a strict liability standard with no caveat emptor defense.

What’s more, is this action may be the only avenue for any of the victims to recover any 

of their damages. 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel have been investigating and litigating these and similar claims against 

failed exchanges FTX and Voyager for two years. After conducting significant research on the 

issues with the top cryptocurrency experts in the field, Plaintiffs’ counsel brought the first 

nationwide class action against failed cryptocurrency exchange, Voyager Digital,6 where they 

litigated many of these same issues until Voyager declared bankruptcy in July 2022. In August

2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel brought the first nationwide class action against some of the largest Brand 

Ambassadors of Voyager for their respective roles in facilitating Voyager’s offer and sale of 

unregistered securities.7 That Voyager litigation is ongoing, and after substantial discovery, 

including reviewing tens of thousands of documents and taking over half a dozen significant 

depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel have already amassed enough evidence to seek class certification 

and summary judgment on many of the dispositive issues in the case. 

In connection with Voyager’s bankruptcy, Plaintiffs’ counsel closely followed the bidding 

process that culminated in the purported agreement for FTX to purchase Voyager’s customers’ 

assets, where FTX couched themselves as the saviors of Voyager’s customers. Because that 

6 Mark Cassidy v. Voyager Digital Ltd., et al., Case No. 21-24441-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres (the 

“Cassidy Action”)

7

Robertson, et al. v. Mark Cuban, et al., Case No. 22-CV-22538-ALTMAN/Reid (the “Voyager 

Brand Ambassadors Action”)

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 4 of 27
5

agreement was founded on many false and fraudulent predicates, however, Plaintiffs’ counsel was 

ready to immediately file this action, the first nationwide class action against FTX, two business 

days after it was revealed that FTX operated as a fraudulent Ponzi scheme and sought emergency 

bankruptcy relief for themselves, leaving both Voyager’s and FTX’s customers blindsided with 

many billions of dollars in losses. Plaintiffs’ counsel have since led the nation’s litigation of these 

issues, bringing a number of nationwide and global class actions, and state court individual actions, 

here in South Florida, where FTX maintained its domestic headquarters and base of operations, in 

order to recover these customers’ losses from any and all responsible parties. 

All of the actions Plaintiffs’ counsel have brought to date have now been consolidated 

and/or transferred to this Court, where they can be presided over in an organized and consistent 

fashion. Given that others around the country are now working to catch up, a rash of additional 

actions against many of these same defendants have been brought around the country. As a result, 

in order to continue to organize these actions and to ensure that they are litigated consistently, 

efficiently, and effectively, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a petition before the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation, In re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, MDL No. 3076 

(J.P.M.L. 2023) (the “MDL Petition”), seeking to consolidate all pending and yet-to-be-filed 

related actions and to transfer them to the Southern District of Florida for pretrial purposes. The 

MDL Petition was fully briefed and has been set for oral argument on the JPML’s calendar in 

Philadelphia on May 25, 2023. This action involves many of the very same common legal and 

factual issues raised by the related actions subject to the MDL Petition. 

One such common legal issue, the question of whether the sale of every YBA or FTT token

is (or is not) the sale of “unregistered securities,” has practically been answered in the affirmative 

through various regulatory statements, guidance, and actions issued by the Securities and 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 5 of 27
6

Exchange Commission and other regulatory entities. 

For example, on November 1, 2017, in the “SEC Statement Urging Caution Around 

Celebrity Backed ICOs,”8 the SEC referred to their Report of Investigation concerning The DAO,9

warning that virtual tokens or coins sold in ICOs may be securities, and those who offer and sell 

securities in the United States must comply with the federal securities laws. Any celebrity or other 

individual who promotes a virtual token or coin that is a security must disclose the nature, scope, 

and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion. A failure to disclose this 

information is a violation of the anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws. Persons 

making these endorsements may also be liable for potential violations of the anti-fraud 

provisions of the federal securities laws, for participating in an unregistered offer and sale of 

securities, and for acting as unregistered brokers. The SEC will continue to focus on these types 

of promotions to protect investors and to ensure compliance with the securities laws.

Now that all Defendants are properly before this Court and the Parties held their Initial 

Scheduling Conference on April 28, 2023, discovery may now proceed expeditiously and 

efficiently (unless the Court should decide to stay discovery pending rulings on motions to dismiss 

or a ruling by the JPML regarding consolidation).

10 Plaintiffs will then move for certification of 

an issue class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (c)(4), with respect 

to the very specific, narrow and simple issue of whether (or not) the YBAs and/or FTT constitute

8

https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-potentially-unlawful-promotion-icos

(accessed May 8, 2023) (emphasis added).

9 https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf (accessed May 8, 2023)

10 Plaintiffs, as explained in their limited response to Defendant Bankman-Fried’s Motion to Stay 

or Alternatively to Dismiss, [ECF No. 176], do not oppose staying this action only as to Defendant 

Bankman-Fried until the conclusion of the trial against him in the criminal action pending in the 

Southern District of New York (Case No. 22-cr-00673). Plaintiffs submit that the stay against 

Defendant Bankman-Fried should not continue through his criminal appeals process. However, 

the Court need not reach that issue now.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 6 of 27
7

unregistered securities. Plaintiffs are seeking to have this simple issue determined by the Court as 

soon as practicable. Plaintiffs will thereafter seek a determination on this issue, either through 

summary judgment or an expedited trial to the extent the Court deems the determination to be an 

issue of fact. 

II. Defendants’ Statements

A. Sam Bankman-Fried’s Statement

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried is a defendant in a criminal matter set for trial in October, 

2023 n United States v. Bankman-Fried, 22-cr-00673 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.). The issues in the present 

action are inextricably intertwined with the subject of the criminal matter. In order to protect his 

Constitutional rights pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Bankman-Fried respectfully submits 

that the claims against him should be severed from the present action, and that all aspects of the 

present action, including discovery, should be stayed as against him pending the outcome of the 

criminal matter.

B. The Non-FTX Defendants’ Statement

The Non-FTX Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Statement, which includes multiple 

allegations not found in the operative Amended Complaint [ECF 16] and conclusory statements 

of law unsupported by the allegations made. For example, Plaintiffs’ allegations rest, in large part, 

on a factual inaccuracy, which Plaintiffs know (or should know) cannot properly be asserted: 

FTX’s headquarters was never moved to Miami, which means that Plaintiffs’ claims lack the 

requisite nexus to Florida.

Plaintiffs seek to hold the Non-FTX Defendants—seven current or former professional 

athletes, a professional basketball team, a supermodel, a television personality, and a comedian—

jointly and severally liable for billions of dollars in claimed losses resulting from Plaintiffs’ and 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 7 of 27
8

the putative classes’ alleged deposits of funds into Yield Bearing Accounts (“YBAs”) offered by 

FTX. Plaintiffs allege the Non-FTX Defendants are somehow responsible for these losses—and 

indeed are “sellers” of YBAs—because of their involvement in FTX advertisements or 

sponsorships relating to the FTX exchange. However, Plaintiffs do not allege any Non-FTX 

Defendant ever even mentioned YBAs—let alone encouraged any Plaintiff to deposit funds into 

them—nor do they allege that any Non-FTX Defendant played any role in the subsequent alleged 

losses of funds from those accounts—which Plaintiff’s pleading makes clear was the result of

FTX’s misappropriation and mismanagement.

Plaintiffs were not injured by any of the Non-FTX Defendants. As their pleading shows, 

FTX—not any Non-FTX Defendant—allegedly enticed Plaintiffs into opening YBAs. And FTX

allegedly operated the scheme that deprived Plaintiffs of the funds deposited into those YBAs. 

Plaintiffs do not—and cannot—allege a causal connection between the FTX-offered YBAs that 

allegedly caused their injuries and any statement made by any Non-FTX Defendant—some of 

whom are not even alleged to have made any statements about FTX as a trading platform, let alone 

about one of the specific products FTX offered. This total lack of connection between the nonFTX Defendants and the product that allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ injuriesis fatal to all of Plaintiffs’ 

claims (including their assertion that the non-FTX Defendants “sold” YBAs), requiring dismissal 

of this action with prejudice. 

Plaintiffs’ claims further fail because Plaintiffs fail to plead facts supporting the elements 

of their counts for violations of the Florida Securities Act, FDUTPA (which is not even applicable 

in the securities context), civil conspiracy, or a declaratory judgment. Not only that, stretching 

these causes of action to impose liability for otherwise valid commercial speech would raise 

significant First Amendment concerns. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 8 of 27
9

Finally, as Plaintiffs’ pleading establishes, this suit cannot proceed without FTX, the 

central actor in Plaintiffs’ story and the entity in possession of the majority of the evidence.

However, as Plaintiffs’ pleading also establishes, the FTX entities have sought bankruptcy 

protection, which creates innumerable impediments to Plaintiffs ever successfully prosecuting any 

claims they may have—and they have none properly against any of the Non-FTX Defendants. 

III. Conference Report – Information Required by L.R. 16.1(B)(2)

A. Likelihood of Settlement

The Parties are amenable at this stage to selecting a mediator and scheduling a time, 

date, and place to conduct mediation in this matter. The Non-FTX Defendants believe that 

mediation should take place only after resolution of their pending (or any renewed) motions to 

dismiss. Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

The Parties agree to comply with any requirements under the Local Rules with respect to good 

faith settlement discussions.

B. Likelihood of Appearance in the Action of Additional Parties

Plaintiffs believe that, as discovery progresses, additional parties may be added. At this 

time, the Non-FTX Defendants are unaware of any additional parties who would properly be added 

to this action. Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II 

above.

C. Proposed Limits on Time

See the proposed case schedules at Section V, below.

D. Proposals for the Formulation and Simplification of Issues

The Parties submit that they will work in good faith to simplify the issues at an appropriate 

time. Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 9 of 27
10

E. Necessity or Desirability of Amendments to the Pleadings

Plaintiffs’ Position. Many of the Defendants have raised jurisdictional challenges to 

Plaintiffs’ claims. A number of them even filed sworn declarations to dispute personal jurisdiction 

and they seek dismissal on that basis. As a result of the factual disputes about personal jurisdiction, 

on April 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Expedited Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional 

Discovery, and to Amend Their Complaint With Any Facts Arising From Such Discovery, [ECF 

No. 163], seeking leave to conduct such discovery expeditiously (within 45 days of the Court’s 

order granting the Motion). 

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant leave for Plaintiffs to conduct that 

jurisdictional discovery, and then for a brief 20 day period following the close of that jurisdictional 

discovery to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint that 

refines and/or supplements their jurisdictional allegations (including joining or dismissing 

Defendants, where applicable, as determined from the facts obtained through that jurisdictional 

discovery), and further allows Plaintiffs their first opportunity to provide significant substantive 

amendments to the allegations and claims in their consolidated pleading, as Plaintiffs amended 

their complaint by order of this Court to effect the consolidation of the Podalsky and Garrison 

actions on December 16, 2023, and have not yet sought leave to amend their complaint because 

they were completing service of process on Defendants and did not have the benefit of Defendants’ 

Motions to Dismiss, which were first filed April 14, 2023.

Effecting this substantive amendment to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint after 

first conducting brief jurisdictional discovery would be an efficient process, and “Courts routinely 

allow such amendments to cure pleading deficiencies in service of the general principle that 

“decisions on the merits are not to be avoided on the basis of ‘mere technicalities.’” Castros v. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 10 of 27
11

Signal Fin. Co. LLC, 1:17-CV-21870-KMM, 2018 WL 1137099, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2018) 

(Moore, C.J.) (collecting cases).11

In addition, Plaintiffs are endeavoring to obtain Defendants’ agreement to stipulate to the 

filing of an amended complaint, but if Defendants do not agree, Plaintiffs intend to file a formal 

motion seeking leave to amend the complaint due to factual investigations that have occurred since 

the case was filed, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) before the May 15, 2023 deadline. Granting leave to 

amend the complaint would be proper and warranted, even without first conducting personal 

jurisdiction discovery, on Plaintiffs’ impending motion pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure because, in addition to the amendment not being futile where Plaintiffs 

seek to address purported pleading deficiencies raised in Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the 

request would be timely and results in no prejudice to the Defendants, as there is no scheduling 

order or discovery deadline currently in place, the expiration of which would otherwise require 

Plaintiffs to show “good cause” to amend under Rule 16(b).

11 Granting Plaintiffs’ request would comport with the “policy of the federal rules []to permit 

liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from 

becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading,” particularly where the proposed 

amendment would not violate any scheduling order in place and there is no “substantial reason” to 

deny the amendment, which “could include ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated 

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing 

party, and futility of the amendment[,]’” none of which would apply since Plaintiffs would be 

providing their first substantive amendment to the complaint after, at a minimum, taking narrow 

discovery to address the jurisdictional arguments raised by some of the Defendants. Castros, 2018

WL 1137099, at *1 (citations omitted). See also Crossroads Financial, LLC v. Alma-Mater 

Collection, Inc., No. 15-81095-CIV-MARRA, 2019 WL 13196474 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2019) 

(Marra, J.) (reversing on reconsideration the court’s prior order denying belated motion for leave 

to file second amended counterclaim, filed over 3 years after the deadline to amend in the 

scheduling order, explaining that “it would be in the interest of judicial economy to grant the 

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Counterclaim, rather than ruling on the Motion to 

Dismiss Amended Counterclaim, and if granted, allow leave to amend (DE 129). This is especially 

appropriate where, as here, [counter-plaintiff] has conceded the Amended Counterclaim has 

multiple ‘technical pleading issues’ that have subsequently been addressed in the proposed Second 

Amended Counterclaim”).

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 11 of 27
12

For example, amongst the anticipated revisions and additions to the anticipated Amended 

Consolidated Complaint that Plaintiffs intend to file will be allegations clarifying that Plaintiffs 

seek to hold Defendants accountable for their promotion of the FTX Platform and their necessary 

involvement in promoting YBAs and FTT, which Plaintiffs allege are also securities that were 

required to be registered. See, e.g., ECF No. 16 ¶¶ 170–172; see also, e.g., ECF No. 16-1 

(Preliminary Expert Report of Paul Sibenik of CipherBlade Blockchain Investigation Agency). 

Aside from above, Plaintiffs have proposed a final deadline for amendments in their

proposed schedule for after the Court’s decision on class certification, in the event Plaintiffs need 

to convert this action to a mass action.

Non-FTX Defendants’ Position. With respect to discovery, the Non-FTX Defendants’ 

position is outlined in their pending motion to stay discovery, ECF 162. With respect to the 

“jurisdictional discovery” sought by Plaintiffs, the relevant Non-FTX Defendants intend to oppose 

Plaintiffs’ pending motion, ECF 163, on the grounds that there are no disputed issues of fact that 

would warrant such discovery; to the contrary, Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts sufficient to 

establish personal jurisdiction over the Non-Florida Defendants.

With respect to amendment, the Non-FTX Defendants state that Plaintiffs have already 

amended their pleading once as of right in this action, when they more than doubled the size of 

their complaint from 41 pages (ECF 1) to 97 pages plus added a 17-page expert report. See ECF 

16. In any case, more than 21 days have passed since the Non-FTX Defendants filed their motions 

to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within

. . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 12 of 27
13

12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.”).

12 Accordingly, any further amendment requires consent 

of all defendants, including the Non-FTX Defendants, or leave of Court. While Plaintiffs have not 

provided a proposed amendment for the Non-FTX Defendants to review, the Non-FTX Defendants 

do not believe that any amendment could cure the deficiencies identified in their pending motions 

to dismiss. See ECFs 139, 154 & 156-59. Of course, should Plaintiffs provide a proposed 

amendment for review, the Non-FTX Defendants will consider any proposed amendment in good 

faith. However, given the incurable deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ existing Amended Complaint, which 

are not “technical pleading deficiencies” but incurable legal flaws, the Non-FTX Defendants 

believe that no amendment should be allowed, if at all, until the Court rules on those motions.

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

F. Possibility of Obtaining Admissions and Stipulations

The Parties will cooperate in good faith to obtain admissions and stipulations in the 

discovery process that will limit the issues in dispute and reduce the time needed to conduct a trial.

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

G. Suggestions for the Avoidance of Unnecessary Proof and of Cumulative 

Evidence

The Parties have no suggestions at this time but will cooperate in good faith to eliminate 

unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence. Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his 

statement in response to item II above.

H. The Advisability of Referring of Matters to a Magistrate Judge

The Court has referred discovery issues to the Magistrate Judge. See ECF 6.

The Parties do not consent to trial by a Magistrate Judge, nor to the disposition of

12 Plaintiffs also amended their pleading in action styled Podalsky v. Bankman-Fried, No. 22-cv23983-KMM (S.D. Fla.). See Podalsky ECF 4. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 13 of 27
14

dispositive pre-trial motions by a Magistrate Judge.

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II 

above.

I. Preliminary Estimate of Time Required for Trial

Plaintiffs estimate that a trial in this matter would require 5–7 days. Plaintiffs demand a 

jury trial.

The Non-FTX Defendants estimate a trial in this matter would likely require 10 to 14 

days, especially given the number of defendants named in the Amended Complaint [ECF 16].

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

J. Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates

See Section V, below.

K. Any Discovery Issues

The Parties will cooperate in good faith to develop protocols to facilitate electronic 

discovery and govern privilege issues without the involvement of the Court. This may include 

the submission of an agreed confidentiality order.

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II 

above.

Non-FTX Defendants’ Position. The Non-FTX Defendants anticipate that discovery 

may be substantially delayed in material ways as a result of the forthcoming criminal trial of 

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried, which is presently set for October 2, 2023. The United States 

has taken the position that several cases pending against Mr. Bankman-Fried should be stayed 

due to the potential implications of civil discovery involving not only Mr. Bankman-Fried, but 

also FTX and any cooperating witnesses, including Defendants Ellison, Wang, Singh, and 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 14 of 27
15

Friedberg, for Mr. Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial. See Order at 1, SEC v. Bankman-Fried, No. 

22-cv-10501 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2023), ECF No. 16 (granting United States’ motion to stay 

proceedings “until the conclusion of the parallel criminal case”); Order at 1, CFTC v. BankmanFried, No. 22-cv-10503 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2023), ECF No. 38. In addition, discovery from 

FTX itself is likely to pose difficulties due to FTX’s pending bankruptcy, which is in its early 

stages. As described further below, the Non-FTX Defendants anticipate that if this case 

proceeds beyond the pleading stage, they will need substantial discovery from the FTX 

Defendants and from FTX. Accordingly, the Non-FTX Defendants propose that the standard 

tracks be modified, and extended slightly, account for the delays. 

IV. Additional Information Required by L.R. 16(B)(3)

A. Assignment of the Case to a Particular Track

Plaintiffs’ position is that this case merits a standard case management track at this stage, 

as defined by Local Rule 16.1, and as set forth in their schedule proposed in section V, below.

The claims in this lawsuit center on whether FTX’s applicable offerings constitute securities 

that were required to be registered under applicable securities laws, a determination that lends 

itself to issue class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4). Thereafter, 

this matter can proceed to an expedited trial on those issues which would efficiently and 

expediently determine whether Defendants may be found liable under these claims. 

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II 

above.

The Non-FTX Defendants believe that this case could only properly be assigned to a 

Complex Track, as defined in Local Rule 16.1(a)(2)(C), which would have to be extended in 

view of the various ongoing criminal and bankruptcy proceedings arising from the FTX collapse

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 15 of 27
16

and Plaintiffs’ voluntary agreement to stay proceedings against Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried

through his pending criminal proceedings, which are anticipated to go to trial in October 2023 

at the earliest.

B. Detailed Discovery Schedule

Plaintiffs’ and the Non-FTX Defendants’ scheduling proposals for discovery are set forth 

below, at Section V. Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to 

item II above.

C. Any Agreements or Issues Regarding Discovery

There are currently no agreements or issues to be decided by the Court regarding the 

preservation, disclosure, and discovery of documents, electronically stored information, or other 

tangible things. The Parties will cooperate in good faith to develop protocols to facilitate 

electronic discovery and govern privilege and confidentiality issueswithout the involvement of 

the Court. 

V. The Parties’ Proposed Schedule

Plaintiffs propose the following schedule:

Date Deadline or Event

May 8, 2023 Deadline to furnish Initial Disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26

May 15, 2023 (or 20 days 

following the close of 

jurisdictional discovery

(pending Court Order))

Deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to the Motions to Dismiss or 

file an Amended Consolidated Complaint

June 14, 2023 (or 30 days 

following filing of Amended

Consolidated Complaint)

Deadline for Defendants to file replies in support of the 

Motions to Dismiss (or to renew or refile Motions to Dismiss 

Amended Consolidated Complaint)

(30 days following filing of 

Renewed Motions to Dismiss)

Deadline for Plaintiffs to response to the Renewed Motions to 

Dismiss

(30 days following filing of 

Responses to Renewed 

Motions to Dismiss)

Deadline for Defendants to file replies in support of the 

Renewed Motions to Dismiss

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 16 of 27
17

To be set by the Court. Hearing on Defendants Motions to Dismiss (or Renewed 

Motions to Dismiss)

June 15, 2023 Deadline to select mediator, and schedule time, date and place

September 1, 2023 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class Certification

Within 40 days following the 

filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Class Certification

Deadline for Defendants to file Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Class Certification

Within 20 days following the 

filing of Defendants’ 

Response to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class Certification

Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply in support of Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Class Certification

To be set by the Court. Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification

Within 21 days following the 

Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s 

motion for class certification Deadline to file motions to amend pleadings or join parties

September 29, 2023 Deadline to complete fact discovery

October 13, 2023 Deadline for Parties to disclose experts, expert witness 

summaries and reports

November 10, 2023 Deadline to complete mediation

Within 28 days of each Party’s 

expert disclosures Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witness summaries and 

reports

Within 21 days of each 

Party’s rebuttal expert 

disclosures Deadline to complete expert discovery

January 5, 2024 Deadline to file all dispositive pre-trial motions

February 2, 2024 Deadline to respond to all dispositive pre-trial motions

February 16, 2024 Deadline to reply in support of all dispositive pre-trial motions

March 15, 2024

Deadline to file joint pretrial stipulation, witness lists, exhibit

lists, accordance with Local Rule 16.1(d) and (e), and proposed 

jury instructions/conclusions of law (for non-jury trials)

March 29, 2024 Deadline for Parties to submit their deposition designations

April 12, 2024 Deadline to file Daubert motions, motions to strike experts

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 17 of 27
18

May 6, 2024 (approximate) Two-week trial period commences

As stated in the Non-FTX Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery, [ECF 162], the non-FTX 

Defendants believe that all discovery, including initial disclosures, should be stayed pending 

resolution of the dispositive motions in this case. In the event the Court denies that Motion, NonFTX Defendants propose the following schedule, which is based on the assumption that the 

Scheduling Order will be entered by or before June 1, 2023. This schedule assumes additional 

time to account for the delay related to Mr. Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial and the need for 

discovery from FTX, which is currently subject to a bankruptcy stay:

Date Deadline 

or Event

To be set by Court after resolution of 

Non-FTX Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Initial disclosures

August 31, 2023 Last date to move for leave to amend pleadings

October 31, 2023 Deadline to select mediator, and schedule time, date 

and place

October 31, 2023 Estimated end of Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried’s 

stay of action

February 4, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class 

Certification

February 25, 2024 Deadline for Defendants to file Response to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

March 6, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply in support of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

To be set by the Court. Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification

April 4, 2024 Deadline to complete fact discovery

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 18 of 27
19

April 24, 2024 Deadline for Parties to disclose experts, expert 

witness summaries and reports

May 22, 2024 Deadline to exchange rebuttal expert witness 

summaries and reports

May 24, 2024 Notice of scheduling mediation due

June 28, 2024 Deadline to complete expert discovery

July 13, 2024 Deadline to complete mediation

July 23, 2024 Deadline to file all dispositive pre-trial motions

(summary judgment and Daubert)

August 13, 2024 Deadline to respond to all dispositive pre-trial 

motions

August 23, 2024 Deadline to reply in support of all dispositive pretrial motions

September 6, 2024 Deadline to file deposition designations and motions 

in limine

September 20, 2024 Deadline to file oppositions to motions in limine

September 27, 2024 Deadline to file replies to motions in limine

October 8, 2024 Final pretrial conference

October 16, 2024

Deadline to file joint pretrial stipulation, witness 

lists, exhibit

lists, accordance with Local Rule 16.1(d) and (e), 

and proposed jury instructions/conclusions of law 

(for non-jury trials)

October 21, 2024 Two-week trial period commences

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

VI. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(F)(3) Discovery Plan

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 19 of 27
20

A. What changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement

for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement of when 

initial disclosures were made or will be made.

Plaintiffs propose that the Parties serve Initial Disclosures on May 8, 2023, and supplement 

their Disclosures, if necessary, in accordance with F.R.C.P. 26(a).

The Non-FTX Defendants have moved to stay Initial Disclosures until after the Court rules 

on the pending motions to dismiss [ECF 162]. 

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

B. The subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should

be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or 

be limited to or focused on particular issues.

Plaintiffs’ Position. Plaintiffs’ discovery will be centered on Defendants’ practices, 

agreements, and representations concerning FTX’s Yield-Bearing Accounts (“YBAs”) and FTX’s 

native cryptocurrency token, FTT, as marketed and promoted by the Defendants. Plaintiffs submit 

that discovery should not be phased or otherwise limited to any particular issues.

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

Non-FTX Defendants’ Position. The Non-FTX Defendants’ discovery will be centered 

on Plaintiffs’ alleged purchases of FTX products, their alleged losses, their reasons for purchasing 

FTX products, Plaintiffs’ class allegations, FTX’s operational practices; the current status and 

location of Plaintiffs’ deposits; the factual circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ purchases of 

YBAs; the functionality of YBAs; and contracts, agreements, and policies relating to YBA. As 

stated in the Motion to Dismiss [ECF 154], Non-FTX Defendants anticipate substantial discovery 

issues will exist due to FTX’s status as a non-party to this litigation and the existing bankruptcy 

stay as well as the criminal proceedings against several FTX insiders.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 20 of 27
21

C. Any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically

stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be

produced

The Parties will work in good faith to resolve issues concerning discovery and the 

production of electronically stored information. The Parties will use their best efforts to resolve 

discovery disputes without the need for unnecessary motion practice before the Court, but 

respectfully reserve their rights to seek assistance from the Court if needed.

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

D. Any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation 

materials, including—if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these

claims after production— whether to ask the court to include their 

agreement in an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502

The Parties agree to use the procedures set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), Fed. R. Evid.

502, and any protective order entered in this action regarding any claims of privilege or protection

for materials asserted as prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial.

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

E. What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed 

under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be

imposed

At this time, Plaintiffs do not propose any additional limitations on discovery besides what 

has already been addressed herein.

Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried incorporates his statement in response to item II above.

The Non-FTX Defendants have moved to stay all discovery (and Initial Disclosures) until 

after the Court has adjudicated their motions to dismiss. See ECF 162. The Non-FTX Defendants’ 

believe that discovery should not commence unless and until Plaintiffs’ pleading has survived a 

motion to dismiss. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 21 of 27
22

F. Any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 

16(b) and (c)

At this time, the Parties do not propose any changes to the limitations imposed under 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: May 8, 2023

By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz

Adam M. Moskowitz

Florida Bar No. 984280

adam@moskowitz-law.com 

Joseph M. Kaye

Florida Bar No. 117520

joseph@moskowitz-law.com

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

3250 Mary Street, Suite 202

Coconut Grove, FL 33133

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

By: /s/ David Boies

David Boies

(Pro Hac Vice)

Alex Boies

(Pro Hac Vice)

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

333 Main Street

Armonk, NY 10504

Phone: (914) 749–8200

dboies@bsfllp.com

By: /s/Stephen Neal Zack

Stephen Neal Zack

Florida Bar No. 145215

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800

Miami, FL 33131

Office: 305-539-8400

szack@bsfllp.com

By: /s/Jose Ferrer

Jose Ferrer

Florida Bar No. 173746

Michelle Genet Bernstein

Florida Bar No. 1030736

COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON, P.A. 

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

(305) 476-7400

By: /s/ Roberto Martinez

Roberto Martínez

Florida Bar No. 305596

 bob@colson.com

Stephanie A. Casey

Florida Bar No. 97483

 scasey@colson.com

Zachary Lipshultz

Florida Bar No. 123594

 zach@colson.com

Attorneys for Defendants Thomas Brady, 

Gisele Bündchen, Lawrence David, Golden 

State Warriors, LLC, and Naomi Osaka

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Andrew B. Clubok (pro hac vice)

 andrew.clubok@lw.com

Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice)

 susan.engel@lw.com

Brittany M.J. Record (pro hac vice)

 brittany.record@lw.com

555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

Tel: +1.202.637.2200

Fax: +1.202.637.2201

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Marvin S. Putnam (pro hac vice)

 marvin.putnam@lw.com

Jessica Stebbins Bina (pro hac vice)

 jessica.stebbinsbina@lw.com

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 22 of 27
23

MARK MIGDAL HAYDEN LLP

8 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999

Miami, FL 33130

Office: 305-374-0440

jose@markmigdal.com

michelle@markmigdal.com

eservice@markmigdal.com

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class

Elizabeth A. Greenman (pro hac vice)

 elizabeth.greenman@lw.com

10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100

Los Angeles, California 90067

Tel: +1.424.653.5500

Fax: +1.424.653.5501

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Michele D. Johnson (pro hac vice)

 michele.johnson@lw.com

650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor

Costa Mesa, California 92626-1925

Tel: +1.714.540.1235

Fax: +1.714.755.8290

Attorneys for Defendants Thomas Brady, 

Gisele Bündchen, and Lawrence David

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921

Phone: 415.393.8379

By: /s/ Matthew S. Kahn

Matthew S. Kahn (pro hac vice)

 MKahn@gibsondunn.com

Michael J. Kahn (pro hac vice)

 MJKahn@gibsondunn.com

Michael Dore (pro hac vice forthcoming)

 MDore@gibsondunn.com

Jamila MacEbong (pro hac vice)

 JMacEbong@gibsondunn.com

333 South Grand Avenue

Suite 4600

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

Phone: 213.229.7155

Attorneys for Defendants Golden State 

Warriors, LLC and Naomi Osaka

Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.

Offices at Grand Bay Plaza

2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B

Miami, Florida 33133

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 23 of 27
24

Telephone: (305) 374-1920

Facsimile: (305) 374-1961

By: /s/ David A. Rothstein

David A. Rothstein, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 995762

 DRothstein@dkrpa.com 

Alexander M. Peraza, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 107044

 APeraza@dkrpa.com

Eshaba Jahir-Sharuz, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 1038846

 Eshaba@dkrpa.com

MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE 

LLC

2000 Market Street, Suite 780

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(484) 406-4334

By: /s/ Eric A. Fitzgerals

Eric A. Fitzgerald (pro hac vice)

 eric.fitzgerald@mgclaw.com

Hillary N. Ladov (pro hac vice)

 hillary.ladov@mgclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant William Trevor 

Lawrence

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200

Miami, FL 33131-3368

Phone: (305)-577-3100

By: /s/ Edward Soto

Edward Soto (Fla Bar. No. 0265144)

 edward.soto@weil.com

Attorney for Defendant Shohei Ohtani

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

333 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 4500

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (212) 547-5768

Facsimile: (305) 347-6500

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 24 of 27
25

By: /s/ Nathan Bull

Nathan Bull (Fla. Bar No. 1029523)

 nbull@mwe.com

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

Jason D. Strabo (pro hac vice)

 jstrabo@mwe.com

Ellie Hourizadeh (pro hac vice)

 ehourizadeh@mwe.com

2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: (310) 788-4125

Facsimile: (310) 277-4730

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

Sarah P. Hogarth (pro hac vice)

 shogarth@mwe.com

500 North Capitol Street NW

Washington, DC 20001

Telephone: (202) 756-8354

Facsimile: (202) 756-8087

Attorneys for Defendant Stephen Curry

AKERMAN LLP

350 East Las Olas Boulevard – Suite 1600

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel.: 954-463-2700

Fax: 954-468-2454

By: /s/ Christopher S. Carver

Christopher S. Carver, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 993580

 christopher.carver@akerman.com

Jason S. Oletsky, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 9301

 jason.oletsky@akerman.com

Katherine A Johnson, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1040357

 katie.johnson@akerman.com

Attorneys for Defendant David Ortiz and 

Udonis Haslem

MARCUS NEIMAN RASHBAUM 

& PINEIRO LLP

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 25 of 27
26

100 Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 805

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

Tel: (954) 462-1200

2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305)-400-4260

By: /s/ Jeffrey Neiman

Jeffrey Neiman 

Fla Bar. No. 544469

jneiman@mnrlawfirm.com

Jeffrey Marcus 

Fla. Bar No. 310890

jmarcus@mnrlawfirm.com

Michael Pineiro

Fla. Bar No. 041897

mpineiro@mnrlawfirm.com

Brandon Floch

Fla. Bar No. 125218

bfloch@mnrlawfirm.com

BERK BRETTLER LLP

9119 Sunset Boulevard

West Hollywood, CA 90069

Tel.: (310) 278-2111

Andrew B. Brettler (pro hac vice)

 abrettler@berkbrettler.com

Attorneys for Defendant Kevin O’Leary

/s/ Adam M. Schachter 

GERALD E. GREENBERG 

Florida Bar No. 440094 

ggreenberg@gsgpa.com 

ADAM M. SCHACHTER 

Florida Bar No. 647101 

aschachter@gsgpa.com 

GELBER SCHACHTER & 

GREENBERG, P.A. 

SunTrust International Center 

One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2600 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 728-0950 

E-service: efilings@gsgpa.com 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 26 of 27
27

JEREMY D. MISHKIN (pro hac vice) 

jmishkin@mmwr.com 

RICHARD M. SIMINS (pro hac vice) 

rsimins@mmwr.com 

MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN 

1735 Market Street, 21st Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7505 

Telephone 215-772-1500 

Counsel for Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed on May 8, 2023, 

with the Court via the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all 

attorneys and/or parties of record, as well as via U.S. Mail and/or equivalent courier service to 

any parties who have been served but who have not yet entered appearances in this action.

By: s/ Adam M. Moskowitz

ADAM M. MOSKOWITZ

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2023 Page 27 of 27