Exhibit 2

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

Case No. 22-cv-23753-MOORE/BECERRA 

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

 

Defendants. 

 / 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF TAKING THE VIDEOTAPED 

DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT LAWRENCE GENE DAVID 

Without waiving any objections previously raised by Defendants, Defendant Lawrence 

Gene David raises the objections herein to address the issues set forth below. Pursuant to Rules 

26, 30 and 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26.1 of the Local Rules, and Rule III.G 

of Judge Becerra’s Discovery Procedures (the “Discovery Procedures”), Mr. David hereby objects 

to the deposition notice purporting to require Mr. David to appear and provide testimony in this 

matter on May 11, 2023 (the “Notice”), as follows: 

1. Mr. David objects to the Notice and deposition on the grounds that the Notice has 

not been properly served on Mr. David. 

2. Mr. David objects to the Notice and deposition on the grounds that the Non-FTX 

Defendants in this matter have moved to stay all discovery pending the Court’s resolution of the 

Non-FTX Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss (see ECF 162) (the “Motion to Stay”). Under 

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997), the further case law 

cited in the Non-FTX Defendants’ Motion to Stay, and for such other and further reasons as set 

forth in the Motion to Stay, Mr. David objects to any discovery proceeding at this time. 

3. Mr. David objects to the Notice and deposition on the grounds that the Notice is 

allegedly for the purpose of securing “jurisdictional discovery,” but Plaintiffs’ motion seeking 

leave to conduct such discovery (ECF 163) has not been heard or granted by the Court. Plaintiffs’ 

effort to conduct “jurisdictional discovery” is therefore premature, and no such jurisdictional 

discovery can proceed unless and until that motion has been ruled upon by Judge Moore. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 2 of 4
2 

4. Mr. David objects to the Notice and deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the Notice failed to provide reasonable 

written notice of the deposition. 

5. Mr. David objects to the Notice and deposition pursuant to Rule 26.1(h) of the 

Local Rules on the grounds that the Notice purports to require Mr. David to appear and provide 

testimony out-of-state but Plaintiffs have failed to provide at least fourteen (14) days’ written 

notice, and the Notice is therefore not in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(h). 

6. Mr. David objects to the Notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) 

and Rule III.G of the Discovery Procedures on the grounds that Mr. David is unavailable to appear 

and give testimony at the time and date set forth in the Notice. 

7. Mr. David objects to the Notice pursuant to Rule 26.1(h) of the Local Rules and 

32(a)(5)(A) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiffs have provided fewer 

than 11 days’ notice of the deposition, and Mr. David has complied with the requirements of Rule 

III.G of the Discovery Procedures and, accordingly, any deposition conducted on that date cannot 

be used against Mr. David. Requiring Mr. David to appear and give testimony at a deposition that 

cannot be used in the action is unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive, and would cause 

irreparable harm. 

Dated: May 3, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

Colson, Hicks, Eidson, P.A. 

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

(305) 476-7400 

 

By: /s/ Roberto Martínez 

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 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 3 of 4
3 

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

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 Defendant Lawrence Gene David 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 4 of 4