Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/23793024/Court-Order-in-Mark-Cuban-Case
Timestamp: 2016-09-25 02:19:25
Document Index: 758704738

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2412', '§ 2412', '§ 2412', '§ 2412', '§ 2412', '§ 2412']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreCase 3:08-cv-02050-DDocument 50
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, VS. MARK CUBAN, Defendant. § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-2050-D § § § § §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Following the court’s decision granting defendant Mark Cuban’s (“Cuban’s”) motion to dismiss,1 he moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) and the court’s inherent power. Without suggesting a view on the merits of Cuban’s motion,
the court concludes that Cuban should be permitted to conduct some discovery, followed by supplemental briefing. Accordingly, by this memorandum opinion and order, the court establishes a discovery period and a supplemental briefing schedule. I Cuban moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs, contending that plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) lacked a good faith basis for this lawsuit.
SEC does not question the court’s authority to award relief under § 2412(b) or its inherent power, the SEC maintains that its claims
SEC v. Cuban, 634 F.Supp.2d 713 (N.D. Tex.) (Fitzwater, C.J.), appeal docketed, No. 09-10996 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2009).
Case 3:08-cv-02050-D
against Cuban were factually sufficient, that Cuban’s allegations of investigative misconduct are unfounded, and that Cuban cannot meet the high standard required to recover the relief he seeks. Cuban maintains that the facts on which the SEC relied to bring this lawsuit were insufficient to support the assertion that he entered into an agreement to keep information confidential. He
posits that, because the SEC was aware of this defect before it filed suit, it could not have had a good faith basis for its insider trading claim. Cuban also contends that the SEC engaged in misconduct during its pre-suit investigation. He contends that the “Wells process”2
was improperly initiated before the SEC had substantially completed its own investigation; he complains about the SEC’s handling of his attorneys’ Wells submissions; and he argues that, during the SEC investigation, Guy Fauré (“Fauré”), CEO of Mamma.com Inc.
(“Mamma.com”), was deposed twice, the second time the same week the SEC closed an investigation of Mamma.com and decided to take no action against the company. Cuban maintains that in the second
deposition, the SEC attempted to solicit different answers through
The “Wells process” refers to an established SEC procedure whereby SEC staff may notify persons under investigation of the general nature of the investigation and potential violations being investigated. At that time, the SEC also notifies persons under investigation that they may submit a voluntary statement to the SEC before the staff makes a recommendation regarding whether action should be initiated. See SEC Enforcement Manual of the Commission’s Division of Enforcement 24-25 (Oct. 6, 2008). - 2 -
leading questions. Finally, Cuban relies on a series of emails——which Cuban describes as “harassing”——from an SEC attorney to Cuban. Cuban maintains that the SEC’s entire insider trading
investigation was motivated by a bias against him.
this bias is demonstrated in a speech in which the SEC Director of Enforcement lauded the SEC’s pursuit of high profile insider trading cases. II “As a general rule, litigants must pay their own attorney’s fees.” Stover v. Hattiesburg Pub. Sch. Dist., 549 F.3d 985, 997
(5th Cir. 2008) (citing Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975)). “The ‘American Rule’ is the starting
point for fee awards: Even prevailing litigants are ordinarily not entitled to attorneys’ fees from the losing party.” Blue Skies
Alliance v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 265 Fed. Appx. 203, 206 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citing Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 602 (2001)). Cuban relies on two grants of authority to recover
attorney’s fees and expenses from the SEC: the court’s inherent power to award such relief, and 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b), a provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
A trial court has the inherent power to award fees when it finds that a litigant has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. But this inherent power must be exercised with restraint and discretion. The inherent power is not a broad reservoir of power, ready at an imperial hand, but a limited source; an implied power squeezed from the need to make the court function. Hunting Energy Servs. LP v. Inter-Mountain Pipe & Threading Co., 242 Fed. Appx. 257, 260 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and footnotes omitted) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 42 (1991)). power, § 2412(b) provides: Unless expressly prohibited by statute, a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys . . . to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States or any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction of such action. The United States shall be liable for such fees and expenses to the same extent that any other party would be liable under the common law or under the terms of any statute which specifically provides for such an award. “Section 2412(b) incorporates the ‘American rule’ for fee-shifting, which permits a fee award only when the losing party acted ‘in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’” United In addition to the court’s inherent
States v. Medica Rents Co., 2008 WL 3876307, at *4 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished opinion) (quoting Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir. 1992)). In sum, whether
the court addresses Cuban’s fee request under its inherent power, - 4 -
or § 2412(b), or both, Cuban must show that the SEC acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. This
showing may be based on the SEC’s decision to file and maintain the lawsuit against him or on a sufficient demonstration of an abuse of the judicial process in the method of prosecution. See Batson v.
Neal Spelce Assocs., Inc., 805 F.2d 546, 550 (5th Cir. 1986). In his reply brief, Cuban requests leave to conduct discovery “[i]f . . . the Court believes that it also needs to consider the SEC’s investigative misconduct before rendering a decision.” Reply Br. 10. issues.” Id. D.
He contends there are “numerous unresolved factual Courts have allowed parties seeking relief under
§ 2412(b) to obtain discovery, including from government officials. See Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 315, 318-19 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (allowing Plaintiff who sought award of attorney’s fees under EAJA after prevailing on breach of contract claim against Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to take depositions of former Secretary of HUD, and HUD’s former General Counsel, where former officials had first-hand personal knowledge that no one else had relevant to whether government acted in bad faith in course of litigation). The court is unaware of any reason to deny a party reasonable discovery when seeking attorney’s fees under the court’s inherent power.
III Because there are fact issues that remain to be resolved, and because these issues require (or would benefit from) some
discovery, the court grants Cuban’s request for discovery.3 A The SEC’s complaint rested on the argument that Cuban agreed to keep confidential the information he received from Fauré
regarding the Mamma.com planned private investment in public equity (“PIPE”) offering. Fauré testified during the SEC investigation
that, in response to stating that the information regarding the PIPE was confidential, he received from Cuban “some type of acknowledgment,” such as “‘um-hmm,’ ‘yes,’ ‘go ahead.’” P. Br. 6.
Cuban argues that Fauré’s testimony did not provide the SEC a sufficient factual basis to support the allegations of the
complaint. Cuban maintains that Fauré’s testimony makes clear that Cuban at most acknowledged Fauré’s statement that the information was confidential, but that the testimony could not support the allegation that Cuban entered into a confidentiality agreement. Cuban may conduct discovery to support his allegations about the extent of the evidentiary support for the SEC’s allegation that Cuban agreed to keep the information confidential.
The court assumes that only Cuban seeks discovery. If the SEC desires to conduct some discovery as well, it may do so in accordance with this memorandum opinion and order. - 6 -
B Cuban also asserts that the SEC’s method of conducting the investigation demonstrates its bad faith. In assessing subjective
bad faith, a court may sanction parties for conducting litigation with an improper motive even if the complaint was legally adequate. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 53 (“[T]he imposition of sanctions under the bad-faith exception depends not on which party wins the lawsuit, but on how the parties conduct themselves during the litigation.”). Cuban should be allowed to obtain discovery that
would enable the court to fairly judge some of his allegations regarding how the SEC conducted its investigation. For example, Cuban points to a series of emails sent to him by a senior SEC enforcement attorney. According to Cuban, these
emails “questioned Mr. Cuban’s patriotism” because of “rumors that one of Mr. Cuban’s companies was considering distributing a movie about the 9/11 terrorist attack.” D. Br. 5-6. Some of these
emails were copied to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox (“Chairman Cox”).4 The SEC responds that the attorney neither played a role
in investigating Cuban nor had any relationship with any employee who participated in the investigation. Additional discovery will
enable the court to resolve whether the attorney played a role in investigating Cuban.
According to Cuban, Chairman Cox recused himself from the vote that determined that the SEC would bring an enforcement action against Cuban. - 7 -
Cuban also contends that the SEC took Fauré’s testimony a second time with the intention of trying to elicit more useful answers. He points to what he maintains are leading and repetitive questions, particularly relating to the creation of the alleged confidentiality agreement. only two days after the Fauré testified for the second time SEC concluded its investigation of
Mamma.com, which Cuban argues suggests a quid pro quo.
discovery should assist in evaluating the SEC’s assertion that the Mamma.com investigation was “temporally and substantively distinct” from the investigation of Cuban. P. Br. 21. Discovery could
confirm that there was no overlap of staff working on the two investigations and/or no quid pro quo. IV In allowing discovery, the court reminds the parties that “[t]he inner workings of administrative decision making processes are almost never subject to discovery.” Goetz v. Crosson, 41 F.3d
800, 805 (2d Cir. 1994) (addressing disallowance of questions relating to processes of judicial decision) (citing, inter alia, United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941)). “Relying on
Morgan, other courts have concluded that top executive department officials should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify or deposed regarding their reasons for taking official action.” 2007). Bogan v. City of Boston, 489 F.3d 417, 423 (1st Cir.
It is a settled rule in this circuit that exceptional circumstances must exist before the involuntary depositions of high agency officials are permitted. Top executive department officials should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding their reasons for taking official actions. In re FDIC, 58 F.3d 1055, 1060 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and footnotes omitted); see also Morgan, 313 U.S. at 422. “‘[H]igh ranking government officials have greater duties
and time constraints than other witnesses’ and . . . without appropriate limitations, such officials will spend an inordinate amount of time tending to pending litigation.” Bogan, 489 F.3d at
423 (quoting In re United States (Kessler), 985 F.2d 510, 512 (11th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)). Furthermore, assuming the information in question is discoverable, “[i]f other persons can provide the information sought, discovery will not be permitted against such an official.” In re United States, 197 F.3d 310, 314 (8th Cir. 1999)
(citing In re United States (Kessler), 985 F.2d at 513); see In re FDIC, 58 F.3d at 1062 (“We think it will be the rarest of cases . . . in which exceptional circumstances can be shown where the testimony is available from an alternate witness.”). The court also emphasizes that today’s decision to allow discovery should not be seen as sanctioning a “fishing expedition.” The grounds on which Cuban relies in his motion5 should be seen as
The court does not suggest that any specific ground on which Cuban relies will probably support relief. It has considered the - 9 -
the presumptive limits on the scope of discovery, not as the starting points. calculated to Absent cause, the discovery conducted should be the merits, if any, of the grounds
asserted, not to find or develop new ones. V The discovery permitted by this memorandum opinion and order must be completed no later than February 1, 2010.6 No later than
21 days after the discovery period is completed, Cuban may file a supplemental brief and evidence appendix7 in support of his motion. No later than 21 days after Cuban files these materials, the SEC may file a supplemental brief and, if applicable, evidence
appendix.8
No later than 14 days after the SEC files its response, The court will decide
Cuban may file a supplemental reply brief.
the motion under the procedure allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(c). It will convene an evidentiary hearing only if necessary to resolve a controlling fact issue that involves a determination of witness
merits of his arguments only to the extent necessary to decide whether to allow discovery. The court has set this deadline so that these post-judgment proceedings are not unnecessarily prolonged. But because it recognizes that the holidays fall within this period, it advises the parties that they may request reasonable extensions of this deadline. To avoid confusion, the pagination of the appendix should begin with a number that succeeds the last page of the appendix that Cuban filed on August 28, 2009.
See supra note 7 regarding paginating the appendix. - 10 -
credibility.9 SO ORDERED. December 4, 2009.
Cuban has requested oral argument. If the court decides the motion under Rule 43(c), it will also decide whether to convene oral argument, which is procedurally distinguishable from an evidentiary hearing. - 11 -
Court Order in Mark Cuban Case by DealBook409 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionCourt order allowing Mark Cuban to commence discovery in the dismissed insider trading case against him, which was filed by the S.E.C.Court order allowing Mark Cuban to commence discovery in the dismissed insider trading case against him, which was filed by the S.E.C.Interests: Types, Business/Law, FinanceRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedMark Cubanby efuchs160(PC) Cazares-Montes v. Kern County Sheriff&apos;s Department - Document No. 11by Justia.comHastert June18 Transcript of Proceedings - Statusby OpDeathEatersMontgomery v eTreppid # 253 | Protective Orderby Jack Ryan2006-01by aaditya01In Re: Webloyalty.com, Inc., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation - Document No. 76by Justia.comJoint Status Report and Proposed scheduling DIAS KADYRBAYEV and ROBEL PHILLIPOSby Josefina Apple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc. - Document No. 42by Justia.comDoc 24; Matanov Govt Motion for a Protective Order 070114by Josefina Nelson v. Bittick - Document No. 5by Justia.comUnited States v. Mariano Hernando Ospina, Mauricio Lehrer, 798 F.2d 1570, 11th Cir. (1986)by Scribd Government DocsMaes v. Recovery One, LLC et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comGeneral Order On Discovery Objectionsby cinaripatAgra Election Statutes Compiledby Anton MercadoCIv Pro II Outlineby wagonekmDigital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc., - Document No. 26by Justia.comBlaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al - Document No. 388by Justia.comOmni Innovations LLC et al v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc et al - Document No. 14by Justia.comNetscape Communications Corporation et al v. Federal Insurance Company et al - Document No. 141by Justia.comSoftview LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 12-989-LPS & 10-389-LPS (Cons.) (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013)by YCSTBlog"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation" - Document No. 137by Justia.com2013proxystatements_cc0362_november2012by Adina CurtOrder and Opinionby pauloverhauserRA 8799.pdfby pretityn19RM 980 S 2010by Sairah DionisioFodor-v-Does-04-27-2011by Legal WriterResolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver of Great Plains Federal Savings and Loan Association v. B. Wayne Dabney, an Individual Van Dyck, Hays, Dabney, Pullins, Rivas & Kingsolver, P.C., a Professional Corporation, Robert E. Craddock, Jr. Tom Colbert Neysa L. Day, Movants-Appellants, 73 F.3d 262, 10th Cir. (1995)by Scribd Government DocsHuffman Drought Billby Rep. Jared HuffmanSimilar to Court Order in Mark Cuban CaseMark Cuban(PC) Cazares-Montes v. Kern County Sheriff&apos;s Department - Document No. 11Hastert June18 Transcript of Proceedings - StatusMontgomery v eTreppid # 253 | Protective Order2006-01In ReJoint Status Report and Proposed scheduling DIAS KADYRBAYEV and ROBEL PHILLIPOSApple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc. - Document No. 42Doc 24; Matanov Govt Motion for a Protective Order 070114Nelson v. Bittick - Document No. 5United States v. Mariano Hernando Ospina, Mauricio Lehrer, 798 F.2d 1570, 11th Cir. (1986)Maes v. Recovery One, LLC et al - Document No. 3General Order On Discovery ObjectionsAgra Election Statutes CompiledCIv Pro II OutlineDigital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc., - Document No. 26Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al - Document No. 388Omni Innovations LLC et al v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc et al - Document No. 14Netscape Communications Corporation et al v. Federal Insurance Company et al - Document No. 141Softview LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 12-989-LPS & 10-389-LPS (Cons.) (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013)"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation" - Document No. 1372013proxystatements_cc0362_november2012Order and OpinionRA 8799.pdfRM 980 S 2010Fodor-v-Does-04-27-2011Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver of Great Plains Federal Savings and Loan Association v. B. Wayne Dabney, an Individual Van Dyck, Hays, Dabney, Pullins, Rivas & Kingsolver, P.C., a Professional Corporation, Robert E. Craddock, Jr. Tom Colbert Neysa L. Day, Movants-Appellants, 73 F.3d 262, 10th Cir. (1995)Huffman Drought BillStatcon - Sept 10, 2011Tracy Martin and Alicia Stanley Divorce