UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

RITCHIE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., 

RITCHIE RISK-LINKED STRATEGIES 

TRADING (IRELAND), LIMITED, RITCHIE 

RISK-LINKED STRATEGIES TRADING 

(IRELAND) II, LIMITED, WALKERS SPV 

LIMITED, as trustee for Ritchie Risk-Linked 

Strategies Trust I and Ritchie Life Strategies 

Master Trust, and RITCHIE RISK-LINKED 

STRATEGIES TRADING, LTD., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COVENTRY FIRST LLC, THE COVENTRY 

GROUP, INC., MONTGOMERY CAPITAL, 

INC., LST I LLC, ALAN BUERGER, 

CONSTANCE BUERGER, REID S. 

BUERGER, ANTONIO MUNIZ, ALEX 

SELDIN, NEAL JACOBS, EILEEN SHOVLIN, 

and JIM DODARO, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 07CV3494 

(DLC)(DCF) 

ECF Case 

RULE 26(f) REPORT OF 

PARTIES 

 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), the parties hereby submit this report 

for consideration by the Court, following a telephone conference by counsel for the parties on 

June 21, 2007. 

NATURE AND BASIS OF THE PARTIES’ CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

1. This case concerns the secondary market for life insurance policies in the “life 

settlements” industry. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants perpetrated a massive fraud in 

connection with Plaintiffs’ purchase of life insurance policies from Defendants. Plaintiffs have 

alleged violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 

and claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. 

Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 38 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 1 of 6
2

2. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ claims concerning a “massive fraud” involving 

seventeen parties (fourteen of which were not parties to the transactions at issue), and believe 

this lawsuit is an ordinary contract dispute based on the purchase of life insurance policies from 

LST I LLC by Ritchie Risk Linked Strategies (Ireland) (“Ritchie I”) and Ritchie Risk Linked 

Strategies (Ireland) II (“Ritchie II”). Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims, and contend 

that Plaintiffs’ attempt to expand the lawsuit to include fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and 

RICO claims cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations of 

wrongdoing and deny that Plaintiffs have been harmed in any way. 

SUBJECTS ON WHICH DISCOVERY MAY BE NEEDED

3. Plaintiffs intend to take discovery relating to, among other things, the claims 

outlined in the Complaint, insurance policy documents, financial statements, all records of 

contracts, servicing agreements, payments, press releases, and related correspondence associated 

with these contracts and policies, as well as discussions between these parties regarding these 

contracts and policies, including all documents and correspondence relating to the complaints 

brought by the New York Attorney General and the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation

against Coventry. Defendants dispute the scope of Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery. 

4. To the extent discovery is required, Defendants intend to take discovery relating 

to, among other things: (a) any claims that survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss; (b) the 

formation of the contractual arrangements between LST I and Ritchie I and Ritchie II; (c) 

whether Plaintiffs have waived their claims by failing to comply with the notice and cure 

provisions contained in the parties’ contracts; (d) whether Plaintiffs were damaged; (e) whether 

Plaintiffs’ alleged damages resulted from Defendants’ purported conduct as opposed to 

Plaintiffs’ own financial mismanagement and illegal activities; (f) whether Plaintiffs failed to 

Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 38 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 2 of 6
3

mitigate their alleged damages; (g) whether Plaintiffs breached their contractual obligations by 

initiating suit against Defendants; (h) whether Ritchie I or Ritchie II purchased policies 

originated through the use of undisclosed fees or gross offers; and (i) Plaintiffs’ knowledge and 

experience in the secondary market for life insurance policies. Plaintiffs dispute the scope of 

Defendants’ proposed discovery. 

CHANGES TO THE TIMING OF, FORM OF, 

REQUIREMENTS OF,OR LIMITATIONS ON DISCOVERY

5. At this time, the parties propose no changes to the Civil Rules or Local Rules 

regarding discovery, with the following exception: Plaintiffs propose that each side be permitted 

up to twenty-five (25) depositions, with each deposition limited to two (2) days of seven (7) 

hours each day. Defendants oppose the proposed modification to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) at this stage of the litigation, and believe that the parties should obtain 

leave of court if more than ten (10) depositions are needed at a future date. Defendants also 

oppose Plaintiffs’ proposed modification to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2), and 

believe that all depositions should be presumptively limited to seven (7) hours. 

6. To protect privileged, confidential or sensitive commercial, financial, business or 

personal information, the parties have exchanged a draft Protective Order and expect to execute 

it shortly. 

7. In serving requests for production of documents under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34, the parties may request the form or forms in which electronically stored 

documents are to be produced. The parties propose that, wherever possible, all electronically 

stored documents be requested and produced in .tif or .pdf format. 

Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 38 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 3 of 6
4

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

8. The parties shall file the initial disclosures required under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(1) no later than July 5, 2007. The parties agree that no defendant waives 

available personal jurisdiction defenses by filing this report or initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 

26(a)(1). 

9. The parties disagree about the commencement of discovery. Plaintiffs propose 

that discovery begin on July 12, 2007. Defendants believe that discovery should be stayed until 

the later of (a) the Court’s decision on their pending motion to dismiss, or (b) the sale of Life 

Settlement Policies in bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Ritchie I and Ritchie II on June 20, 

2007, in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 07-11906(BRL)). Defendants will file 

appropriate motions with the Court as necessary. 

10. The parties also disagree about the time required to complete discovery. Plaintiffs 

propose that all fact discovery be completed within six (6) months of the commencement of 

discovery on July 12, 2007, or by January 11, 2008, and that all expert discovery be completed 

by March 11, 2008. Defendants propose that all fact discovery be completed within eight (8) 

months of the commencement of discovery, and that all expert discovery be completed within 

two (2) months of the completion of fact discovery. 

11. Defendants further propose the following schedule: (a) that all additional parties 

be joined pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and pleadings amended pursuant to 

Rule 15, no later than one (1) month following the commencement of discovery; (b) for the party 

with the burden on the issue, that identification of experts and disclosures of expert testimony 

conforming to the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) occur simultaneously with the close of fact 

discovery; (c) that identification of rebuttal experts and disclosure of expert testimony 

Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 38 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 4 of 6
5

conforming to the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) take place no later than one (1) month later; 

(c) that any motion for summary judgment be served no later than two (2) months following the 

close of expert discovery, with opposition thereto served within fourteen (14) days, and any reply 

served within five (5) days; and (d) that the Joint Pretrial Order be filed no later than two 

(2) months following service of any summary judgment reply. 

12. Plaintiffs dispute the interim deadlines proposed by the Defendant. In light of the 

disagreement between the parties concerning the proposed scheduling order, and until the Court 

sets the commencement and termination dates for discovery, Plaintiffs do not believe that it is 

necessary at this stage of the litigation to set interim deadlines for discovery. 

Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 38 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 5 of 6
6

Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 5, 2007 

 

LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. PUCCIO 

Thomas P. Puccio 

230 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10169 

Tel: (212) 883-6383 

Fax: (212) 883-6388 

ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, 

ORSECK & UNTEREINER LLP 

By:___/s/_______________________ 

 Lawrence S. Robbins 

 Gary A. Orseck 

 Daniel R. Walfish 

 Rachel S. Li Wai Suen 

1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 411L 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

(202) 775-4500 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Ritchie Capital 

Management LLC, Ritchie Risk-Linked 

Strategies Trading (Ireland), Limited, 

Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading 

(Ireland) II, Limited, Walkers SPV Limited, 

and Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies 

Trading, Ltd. 

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 

By:__ /s/______________________ 

 Dane H. Butswinkas 

Robert H. Cary 

Kenneth J. Brown 

Katherine G. Lindsey 

725 Twelfth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 434-5000 

Counsel for Defendants Coventry First 

LLC, The Coventry Group, Inc., 

Montgomery Capital, Inc., LST I LLC, Alan 

Buerger, Constance Buerger, Reid S. 

Buerger, Antonio Muniz, Alex Seldin, Neal 

Jacobs, Eileen Shovlin, and Jim Dodaro

Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 38 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 6 of 6