1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

MISH INT’L MONETARY INC., 

on behalf of itself and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 20-cv-04577 

v. 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., et al., 

Defendants. 

Hon. Manish S. Shah 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert 

JOINT STATUS REPORT 

Plaintiff Mish International Monetary Inc. and Defendants Vega Capital London Limited 

(“Vega”), Adrian Spires (together with Vega, the “Vega Defendants”), Paul Commins, George 

Commins, Christopher Roase, Elliott Pickering, Aristos Demetriou, Connor Younger, James 

Biagioni, Henry Lunn, Paul Sutton, and Matthew Rhys Thompson (the “Trader Defendants”) 

(collectively, with all of the Defendants, “the Defendants”) respectfully submit this joint status 

report pursuant to the Court’s February 2, 2024 Order directing the parties to file a status report 

by March 1, 2024, including their proposals for a briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s motion for 

class certification and any discovery required prior to briefing. ECF Nos. 294, 300. 

I. Briefing Schedule Proposal

On February 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and an 

accompanying 40-page memorandum of law. ECF Nos. 303, 305. Plaintiff also filed 47 exhibits 

in support of its motion, including a 134-page expert report by Professor Craig Pirrong. ECF 

No. 306. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff provided Defendants with corrected copies of the 

motion, memorandum, and exhibits (including the expert report), and Plaintiff filed its corrected 
2 

papers under seal on February 28, 2024. ECF Nos. 310-313. The Court granted Plaintiff’s 

motion to submit the corrected copies under seal on February 29. ECF No. 314. 

The parties have conferred. Without opposition from Plaintiff, Defendants propose to 

respond to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, including any expert reports, by Thursday, 

May 23, 2024 (90 days after service of Plaintiff’s corrected papers). Without opposition from 

Defendants, Plaintiff proposes to file its reply, including any rebuttal expert reports, by Monday, 

July 22, 2024 (60 days after Defendants’ response). 

Defendants respectfully submit that the proposed schedule is warranted by the length of 

time needed to brief the opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, to analyze the 

expert report submitted by Plaintiff, to take the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert, and to file any 

other motions.1 The proposed schedule is similar to what has been ordered in other cases 

alleging market manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. See, 

e.g., Ploss v. Kraft Food Group, 15-cv-02937, ECF 212 (N.D. Ill. April 3, 2018) (ordering 

“Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification, including any expert reports in support of 

class certification by 09/04/2018” and “[a]ny opposition to class certification, shall be file by 

12/17/2018” and “[a]ny reply brief on the motion for class certification, including any expert 

reports in further support of class certification, shall be filed by 02/18/2019”); AOT Holding AG 

v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 19-cv-02240-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2021) (ordering 

“Plaintiff shall move for class certification, if at all, and disclose class certification experts by 

1 The Vega Defendants are also pursuing discovery that they believe will be relevant to 

class certification issues and that should be included in the opposition to the motion for class 

certification. However, because the parties have agreed on the proposed schedule, the Vega 

Defendants do not believe that the Court has to make any findings with respect to discovery in its 

scheduling order. The Vega Defendants will continue pursuing this discovery as promptly as 

possible. 
3 

7/23/21” and “Defendant shall file any brief in opposition to class certification, disclose rebuttal 

experts on class certification, and file Daubert motions challenging Plaintiffs class certification 

experts, if any, by 11/8/21” and “Plaintiff shall file any reply brief in support of class 

certification, respond to Defendant’s Daubert motions, and file any Daubert motion challenging 

Defendant’s experts by 1/14/22”). 

If such 90-day time period is allowed, without opposition from Defendants, then Plaintiff 

respectfully requests that it be permitted 60 days (i.e., approximately 67% of the time which 

Defendants have for their Opposition). Plaintiff respectfully notes that, under ECF No. 282, 

Plaintiff’s time to submit the class certification reply papers was 83% of the time that Defendants 

had to submit their opposition papers. Id. (42 days for Defendants’ opposition vs. 35 days for 

Plaintiffs’ reply). Further, Plaintiff respectfully notes that the Memorial Day and July 4 holidays 

fall within Plaintiff’s time to respond. Finally, the class certification orders in prior similar 

actions cited by Defendants (in the immediately preceding paragraph) allowed the plaintiff more 

than 60 days to submit reply papers on the class certification motion. For these reasons and the 

inherent potential magnitude of the expert work that could be involved in reply and rebuttal 

expert submissions, Plaintiff respectfully submits that its requested sixty-day period is 

reasonable, fair, and warranted. 

II. Discovery Required for Class Certification Briefing 

On January 27, 2023, the Court set a discovery and class certification schedule for this 

Action. ECF No. 201. The Court permitted the parties to issue written discovery beginning on 

January 31, 2023, and set a schedule for class certification motion briefing to begin on January 

22, 2024, with Defendants’ joint opposition to class certification, including any supporting 

expert reports due by March 4, 2024, and all fact discovery, including any foreign discovery 
4 

completed by December 30, 2024. ECF No. 201. The Court stated it “will set deadlines for 

amendment of the pleadings, merits expert discovery, and dispositive motions when the parties 

get closer to completing fact discovery.” Id. The Court also stated “Defendants’ motion to 

bifurcate class certification and merits discovery [198] is denied, with the caveat that 

class−certification discovery will necessarily be prioritized to comply with this scheduling

order.” Id. 

Following entry of the scheduling order, the parties have engaged in both party and nonparty discovery. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 244, 282 (joint status reports describing the status of 

discovery); see e.g. ECF 271 (denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to depose 

the Trader Defendants, but permitting Plaintiff to take four depositions): 

Plaintiff may depose up to 4 Trader Defendants before 12/31/23, .... Taking 10 

depositions under those circumstances is unduly burdensome, time consuming, and 

expensive at this stage of discovery.... A sample of 4 defendants is sufficient, and 

will give plaintiff enough opportunity to explore different defendants' roles and 

participation in the events.... 

ECF No. 271. 

On January 5, 2024, the Vega Defendants filed a motion to extend the respective 

deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order by three months to pursue additional non-party 

discovery. ECF No. 289. In ECF 294, the Court ruled: 

For the reasons stated in open court, defendants' motion for an extension of 

deadlines 289 is denied in part and granted in part as to plaintiff's request. Plaintiff's 

motion for class certification is now due 2/12/24. By 2/26/24, the parties shall file 

a status report with competing proposals for briefing the motion and any discovery 

requested prior to briefing. 

ECF No. 294. 

Thereafter, the Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion (to which Defendants did not 

object), to extend the deadline for Plaintiff’s class motion until February 19, 2024 and extended 
5 

the time for this status report to March 1, 2024. ECF Nos. 298, 300. 

Plaintiff now seeks to certify the following class: 

All persons and entities that sold a May 2020 light sweet crude oil (WTI) futures 

contract (“May contract”) traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange between 

9:00 a.m. CST and 1:30 p.m. CST (inclusive) on April 20, 2020 (including by trade 

at settlement (“TAS”)), to liquidate a long position in the May contract. Excluded 

from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, 

subsidiaries, or affiliates and federal governmental entities. 

Party and non-party discovery is still underway. The Vega Defendants are still pursuing 

the document subpoenas on 28 large companies trading WTI on New York Mercantile Exchange 

(“NYMEX”) in April 2020. As of the date of this filing, the Vega Defendants have received 

partial or complete productions from 15 out of the 28 subpoena recipients, and the Vega 

Defendants continue to meet and confer with the subpoena recipients. 

There is a pending motion to quash with respect to the subpoena served on Vitol Inc., and 

the Vega Defendants expect that they will bring additional motions to compel against other 

companies in the near future. For instance, the Vega Defendants expect that they will file a 

motion to compel against Glencore plc, which recently informed the Vega Defendants that it 

does not intend to produce any documents in response to the subpoena. The Vega Defendants 

will file that motion to compel in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 

and will seek to transfer that motion to this Court, as they did with respect to Vitol’s motion to 

quash. The Vega Defendants have also served additional discovery on Plaintiff to investigate 

potential document retention issues. 

Plaintiff’s Position. During meet and confers with Plaintiff, Defendants offered various 

reasons for the 28 subpoenas, including the availability of storage space at the delivery points for 

the May Contract (which consist of storage tanks in and around Cushing, Oklahoma and 

pipelines appurtenant thereto). Although Plaintiff believes that deliverable supply is inherently a 
6 

common class wide merits issue and constitutes one of the additional common questions in this 

Action, Plaintiff’s position is that the ultimate answer to that question is not part of the Rule 23 

burden in this Action. Plaintiff’s position, further, is that if the deliverable supply is a part of the 

Rule 23 burden, then the more appropriate source of the pertinent information would be the 

owners of the storage tanks and pipelines in Cushing, Oklahoma which comprise the delivery 

point under the WTI Contract. Accordingly, during late January 2024, Plaintiff served 17 

subpoenas on the original sources for deliverable supply in and around Cushing, Oklahoma, i.e.,

the owners of the storage tanks and pipelines appurtenant thereto. 

Plaintiff has argued and will continue to argue that discovery being sought and obtained 

by Defendants from the 28 non-parties is not relevant to any contested issue on class 

certification. Compare ECF No. 297 with ECF No. 311, pp. 36-40. Because Plaintiff believes 

that various information obtained by the Vega Defendants from their subpoenas favors Plaintiff 

on the merits (e.g., ECF No. 311 at 36-37), Plaintiff has determined not to move to quash or limit 

any of the remaining discovery on such 28 subpoenas.2

On the other hand, discovery from the commodity exchanges revealed to Plaintiff what it 

regards as substantial additional market dislocation which was not alleged in the complaint nor 

known (at least by Plaintiff) prior to the time of the receipt of discovery from the exchanges. 

E.g., ECF No. 311 at 4-5, 25-26; ECF No. 312, Exhibit 1 at ¶¶10, 25-26, 27, 233-259. Plaintiff 

further acknowledges that, in dealing with all of the anticipated and unanticipated market 

dislocations, Plaintiff’s expert has submitted a lengthy expert report, and the amount of work on 

the class motion in this case is significantly greater than Plaintiff originally anticipated. For these 

2 Plaintiff is preparing responses to the Vega Defendants’ recent discovery requests 

directed to Plaintiff and does not believe such discovery has any relevance to class certification. 
7 

reasons (and not any asserted relevance of Defendants’ 28 subpoenas), Plaintiff does not oppose 

in any way Defendants’ requested ninety day time period for the submission of Defendants’ class 

certification response. 

Vega Defendants’ Position. The Vega Defendants do not believe that Plaintiff's 

discussion of its views on discovery or the merits is necessary or appropriate for a status report 

(i) when the parties have agreed upon the proposed schedule for responding to the motion for 

class certification and (ii) when there is no pending or contemplated motion from Plaintiff on any 

discovery issue. The Vega Defendants strongly disagree with Plaintiff's positions set forth 

above, but do not believe they should burden the Court with advocacy on those issues when there 

is no dispute on the scheduling proposal in this status report. If the Court would prefer for the 

Vega Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's positions, counsel for the Vega Defendants will be 

prepared to address these points at the March 12, 2024 status hearing. 

Expert Backup Materials. On February 26, 2024, pursuant to the Stipulated Order 

Governing the Disclosure and Non-Disclosure of Certain Information Regarding Experts and 

Consultants, ECF No. 238, Plaintiff provided certain data relied on by its expert as a basis for his 

opinions. On February 28, Trader Defendants sent Plaintiff a preliminary list of items they 

contend are missing from the backup Plaintiff is required to provide. Also on February 28, 

Plaintiff informed Trader Defendants that Plaintiff’s preliminary position is that various 

materials which Trader Defendants listed as backup materials are neither backup materials nor 

materials required to be produced by Plaintiff. But Plaintiff stated it would nonetheless provide 

responsive information and seek to work with Trader Defendants. 

On March 1, Trader Defendants sent Plaintiff a list with 79 quantitative claims from Dr. 

Pirrong’s report that Trader Defendants believed to be unsupported by his backup materials. 
8 

Upon receiving the list, Plaintiff requested a meet and confer with Defendants concerning the 

asserted backup materials (many of which appear to Plaintiff to be publicly available 

information, such as May contract prices, etc.). Such meet and confer has been scheduled for 

Monday, March 4. Also on March 1, Plaintiff provided to Defendants substantial materials in 

response to Trader Defendantsʼ request for backup materials.

Defendants and their experts are continuing to analyze the backup materials and expect to 

identify additional missing items. Plaintiff has stated it will seek to continue to promptly 

respond to Defendants’ requests. The parties expect to be able to report further to the Court on 

this issue of backup materials at the status conference scheduled for March 12, 2024. 

Dated: March 1, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Christopher M. McGrath

Christopher Lovell 

Christopher M. McGrath 

LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN 

JACOBSON LLP 

500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440 

New York, New York 10110 

Telephone: (212) 608-1900 

Facsimile: (212) 719-4775 

Marvin A. Miller 

Andy Szot 

MILLER LAW LLC 

115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: (312) 332.3400 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Mish International 

Monetary Inc.

/s/ Michael P. Kelly 

Michael P. Kelly 

AKERMAN LLP 

750 Ninth Street, N.W., Suite 750 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 393-6222 

michael.kelly@akerman.com 

Joel S. Forman 

AKERMAN LLP 

1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor 

New York, NY 10020 

(212) 880-3800 

joel.forman@akerman.com

Amy Graham Doehring 

AKERMAN LLP 

71 S. Wacker Drive, 47th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 634-5700 

amy.doehring@akerman.com 
9 

Michelle D. Nasser 

DOWD BENNETT LLP 

222 West Adams Street 

Suite 250 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(314) 889-7345 

Attorneys for Defendants Vega Capital London 

Limited and Adrian Spires 

/s/ Matthew L. Mazur

Roger A. Burlingame 

Matthew L. Mazur 

DECHERT LLP

160 Queen Victoria Street 

London EC4V 4QQ, United Kingdom 

Telephone: +44 20 7184 7000 

Roger.Burlingame@dechert.com 

Matthew.Mazur@dechert.com 

Steven E. Bizar 

Julia Chapman 

Tony Leyh 

DECHERT LLP 

2929 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Telephone: (215) 994-2222 

Steven.Bizar@dechert.com 

Julia.Chapman@dechert.com 

Tony.Leyh@dechert.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Paul Commins, 

George Commins, Christopher Roase, Elliott 

Pickering, Aristos Demetriou, Connor 

Younger, James Biagioni, Henry Lunn, Paul 

Sutton, and Matthew Rhys Thompson