You're viewing Docket Item 528 from the case US Futures Ex LLC, et al v. Bd Trade Cty of Chgo, et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case: 1:04-cv-06756 Document #: 528 Filed: 07/24/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:5590

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. FUTURES EXCHANGE, L.L.C. and
U.S. EXCHANGE HOLDINGS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO, INC. and CHICAGO
MERCANTILE EXCHANGE INC.,

Defendants.

Civil No. 1:04-CV-6756

Hon. James B. Zagel

PLAINTIFFS’ COMBINED RESPONSE TO STATEMENTS MADE AT THE

JUNE 8, 2015 HEARING AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER

At the Court’s direction, Plaintiffs, U.S. Futures Exchange, L.L.C. and U.S. Exchange

Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Eurex” or “Plaintiffs”), hereby respond to issues raised by

Defendants and the Court at the June 8, 2015 hearing. At that hearing, Plaintiffs highlighted

representative findings from the DOJ Documents that provide significant evidence to support

Eurex’s claims and requested the entry of a Scheduling Order to complete the remainder of the

pretrial process. In response, counsel for the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.

(“CBOT”) and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

offered his own recollection of events, attempted to rebut evidence in the DOJ Documents, and

sought to relitigate arguments that Defendants have already lost by requesting a new round of

briefing in lieu of allowing the case to proceed to additional discovery and a completion of the

pre-trial phase. As explained in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Defendants’

arguments are factually and legally without merit and have already been rejected by the Court –

thus, there is no basis for continued delay in this litigation. Indeed, counsel’s “factual” rebuttal

Case: 1:04-cv-06756 Document #: 528 Filed: 07/24/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:5591

regarding the import of the DOJ Documents demonstrates that there are triable issues of material

fact and that this case should proceed through the remainder of the pretrial process, including

completion of all fact discovery, expert disclosures, dispositive motions, and trial preparation

and trial.

Accordingly, Eurex moves for entry of a Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 16(b) in the form attached hereto. The proposed Scheduling Order charts a path

for the pretrial proceedings necessary to finally move this case to resolution.

Dated: July 24, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kenneth M. Kliebard
Kenneth M. Kliebard (Bar. No. 6201479)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
77 West Wacker Dr., Ste. 500
Chicago, IL 60601-5094
Phone: (312) 324-1000
Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
Kent M. Roger (admitted pro hac vice)
Herman J. Hoying (admitted pro hac vice)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Phone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001

Zachary M. Johns (admitted pro hac vice)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Phone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
U.S. Futures Exchange, L.L.C. and
U.S. Exchange Holdings, Inc.

2