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.

_________________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STAY DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs respond in opposition to the Motion to Stay all Discovery (including even 

exchanging “Initial Disclosures”), [ECF No. 162], filed by Defendants Brady, Bündchen, Curry, 

David, the Golden State Warriors, LLC (“GSW”), Haslem, Lawrence, Ohtani, O’Leary, Ortiz, and 

Osaka (collectively, the “Non-FTX Defendants”).

The Non-Florida Defendants (Curry, David, GSW, Ohtani, and Osaka) moved on Friday, 

April 14, 2023, to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 139. Relying 

on their own newly filed Declarations of Defendants Curry, David, and Ohtani, these FTX 

Defendants argue all claims against them must be dismissed at this stage of the case with prejudice, 

because this Court lacks specific jurisdiction over them. Essentially, Defendants argue (via selfserving, sworn statements) that: (1) there is simply no connection between any of these FTX 

allegations against them and the state of Florida, and (2) this Court cannot, and should not, 

allow Plaintiffs to even conduct any jurisdictional discovery to test those self-serving claims.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 197 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 1 of 8
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

2

But the Defendants’ own Declarations contain general, conclusory language, such as where 

the celebrity declarants live, where they signed their own individual contracts, and where “their 

own” agents and employees reside. They say nothing about any actions FTX took in Florida, 

regarding their specific FTX agreements, regarding which Plaintiffs have been seeking limited 

discovery. 

Although Plaintiffs will be seeking to amend the Complaint this week to, among other 

things, include additional facts and evidence that demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ claims against all 

five of the Non-Florida Defendants “arise out of acts committed by defendants in or directed at the 

forum,” ECF No. 195 at 15, the Non-Florida Defendants’ continued assertions (1) that Plaintiffs’

jurisdictional allegations in the current Complaint do not establish at least a prima facie basis for 

jurisdiction and (2) that the jurisdictional allegations in the current Complaint are contained only 

within a single paragraph are incorrect and entirely without basis. In addition to paragraph 50 of 

the Complaint—which is in substance the same as the jurisdictional allegation that Chief Judge 

Altonaga, Judge Altman, and Magistrate Judge Reid looked to in granting the plaintiffs’ requests 

for jurisdictional discovery in the Voyager Digital cases—Plaintiffs also allege that:

• The FTX Platform and FTX’s fraudulent scheme (which Defendants 

conspired to participate in) emanated from FTX’s domestic headquarters in 

Miami, Florida; ECF No. 16, ¶¶ 8, 121;

• Integral to FTX’s fraudulent scheme “involved utilizing some of the biggest 

names in sports and entertainment to raise funds and drive global consumers 

to invest in the YBAs, which were offered and sold largely from the FTX 

Entities’ domestic base of operations here in Miami, Florida, pouring 

billions of dollars into the Deceptive FTX Platform to keep the whole 

scheme afloat,” ECF No. 16, ¶ 16;

• Florida Plaintiffs Podalsky, Lindeen, and Chernyavksy, all alleging that 

they purchased unregistered securities from FTX “after being exposed to 

some or all of Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding the 

Deceptive FTX Platform as detailed in this complaint, and/or executed 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 197 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 2 of 8
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

3

trades on the Deceptive FTX Platform in reliance on those 

misrepresentations and omissions,” ECF No. 16, ¶¶ 24–26;

• Defendant Osaka debuted her partnership with the FTX Entities by wearing 

the FTX logo on the kit she wore beginning with the Miami Open in 2022, 

ECF No. 16, ¶ 227; and

• “Plaintiffs seek certification of the Classes in part because all offers of FTX 

YBAs to Plaintiffs and the Class Members (in which Defendants each 

substantially participated) were made by FTX from their principal place of 

business in Miami, Florida, and thus every single offer to sell an FTX YBA 

stems from a transactional occurrence that emanated from the State of 

Florida.” ECF No. 16, ¶ 235. 

Plaintiffs here seek the same, reasonable discovery that plaintiffs sought in Undersigned 

Counsel’s related Voyager Digital cases, based on largely the same types of allegations regarding 

those defendants’ connections to the state of Florida as the ones Plaintiffs allege here as to the 

Non-Florida Defendants—and Chief Judge Altonaga, Judge Altman, and Magistrate Judge Reid, 

in various Orders based specifically on Eleventh Circuit precedent, compelled Defendants to 

submit to jurisdictional discovery, despite the fact that defendants there raised nearly identical

objections to the Non-Florida Defendants here. See ECF No. 163, Comp. Ex. A. All FTX 

Defendants continue to argue and reiterate (with no logic or reasoning) that none of these prior 

Orders by this Court are in “in any manner” relevant to this inquiry and cannot even be 

“considered by this Court.” 

With respect to the issue of “jurisdictional” discovery, Plaintiffs’ position is clearly stated 

in their pending Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery. See ECF No. 163. Namely, 

the Non-Florida Defendants should be required to respond to the “jurisdictional requests” for 

production, see ECF No. 163, Comp. Ex. B, which were deemed served on April 28, 2023, the 

date of the Parties’ joint Rule 26(f)/L.R. 16.1 scheduling conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(d)(2)(B).

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 197 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 3 of 8
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

4

In the Voyager Digital litigation, defendants Voyager and Mark Cuban specifically argued 

this same defense, namely that those crypto class cases must be dismissed for a lack of personal 

jurisdiction, alleging they had “no connection to the state of Florida.” However, the plethora of 

evidence obtained from the compelled discovery clearly demonstrated that not only was Florida 

one of the “main” targets for their promotion of Voyager’s unregistered securities, but it was also 

one of the most targeted states, and thus tens of thousands of Florida residents, in fact, suffered 

millions in damages from defendants’ offer and sale of these unregistered securities. Here, there is 

no dispute that FTX (unlike Voyager) conducted its activities from its U.S. headquarters based 

here in Miami, Florida, and there can be no dispute that these Defendants’ activities (such as 

David’s Super Bowl Commercial) were certainly not confined to some limited geographic area

(such as only California).

Plaintiffs respectfully seek leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery. See ECF No. 

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 and/or any transfer ordered by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. While 

Defendants claim Plaintiffs “seek to take seventeen separate depositions,” ECF No. 162 at 3–4 

(emphasis in original), Defendants’ statement is inaccurate, as the only pending discovery requests 

are the limited ones attached to Plaintiffs’ pending Motion, see ECF No. 163 at Comp. Ex. B. 

Finally, although Defendants have motions to dismiss pending,1 those motions will soon 

be rendered moot, in that Plaintiffs will be seeking to file a consolidated amended complaint, 

1 The Non-FTX Defendants base their arguments in favor of a stay of all discovery on Chudasama 

v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997), and its progeny. But Chudasama does not 

require that discovery always be stayed pending resolution of a motion to dismiss. See Ray v. Spirit 

Airlines, Inc., No. 12-61528-CIV, 2012 WL 5471793 *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012) (“The Eleventh 

Circuit did not, however, prescribe ‘a broad rule that discovery should be deferred whenever there 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 197 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 4 of 8
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

5

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), either through Stipulation with Defendants,

or through seeking leave from this Court, which has acknowledged on numerous occasions that 

“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. 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).

This Court previously recognized that, “[a]lthough the Court has discretion to stay 

discovery, see McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006), this District’s Local Rules 

make clear that a stay of discovery pending the determination of a motion to dismiss is the 

exception, rather than the rule.” Vechten v. Elenson, No. 9:12-CV-80668-RNS, 2012 WL 

12978270, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jul. 20, 2012); see also Cabrera v. Progressive Behavioral Science, 

Inc., 331 F.R.D. 185, 186 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (recognizing that, while district courts have broad 

discretion in managing their dockets, “[a] stay of discovery pending the determination of a motion 

to dismiss, however, is the exception rather than the rule.”).

Moreover, “[a] request to stay discovery pending a resolution of a motion is rarely

appropriate unless a resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” Vechten, 2012 WL 

12978270 *1 (quoting McCabe, 233 F.R.D. at 685); see also Dorado v. Bank of America, No. 16-

is a pending motion to dismiss.’”); Reilly v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc., No. 13-21525-CIV, 2013 WL 

3929709, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2013) (“[T]here is no general rule that discovery be stayed while 

a pending motion to dismiss is resolved.”); Gannon v. Flood, No. 08-60059- CIV, 2008 WL 

793682, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2008) (Chudasama “does not indicate a broad rule that discovery 

should be deferred whenever there is a pending motion to dismiss.”); Bocciolone v. Solowsky, No. 

08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008) (“[C]ourts have consistently 

rejected any per se requirement to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion.”).

Instead, the Chudasama court “confronted a very specific situation involving a threefold problem 

— unjustifiable delay by the district court in ruling on the motion to dismiss, an erroneous decision 

to compel discovery from the defendant prior to adjudicating the motion to dismiss, and an 

especially dubious fraud claim that was likely to be dismissed.” Ray, 2012 WL 5471793, at *3.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 197 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 5 of 8
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

6

21147-CIV-SCOLA, 2016 WL 10859786 * 1 (S.D. Fla. Jun 3, 2016) (“A request to stay all 

discovery pending resolution of a motion is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the motion will 

dispose of the entire case.”). 

Here, it certainly cannot be said that Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss “will dispose 

of the entire case,” particularly where Plaintiffs will seek this week to amend their Complaint to, 

among other things, address purported deficiencies raised in the Motions, include additional parties

and claims, and provide additional context and background for the already-pled claims. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 197 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 6 of 8
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

7

Dated: May 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Adam Moskowitz

Adam M. Moskowitz

Florida Bar No. 984280

Joseph M. Kaye

Florida Bar No. 117520

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

3250 Mary Street, Suite 202

Coconut Grove, FL 33133

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

adam@moskowitz-law.com 

joseph@moskowitz-law.com

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 M. Ferrer

Jose Ferrer

Florida Bar No. 173746

Michelle Genet Bernstein

Florida Bar No. 1030736

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 Plaintiff and the Class

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 197 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 7 of 8
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed on May 10, 2023, via 

the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. 

By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz__

ADAM M. MOSKOWITZ

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 197 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 8 of 8