Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Healy

October 21, 2009

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF
v.
SEAN NATHAN HEALY, DEFENDANT AND SHALESE RANIA HEALY AND SAND DOLLAR INVESTING PARTNERS, LLC, RELIEF DEFENDANTS
U.S. COMMODITY AND FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF
v.
SEAN NATHAN HEALY, DEFENDANT AND SHALESE RANIA HEALY AND SAND DOLLAR INVESTING PARTNERS, LLC, RELIEF DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2009, upon consideration of the motion to compel Tim Cash ("Cash") to disclose the identity and location of certain bank accounts (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Healy, Civ. A. No. 1:09-CV- 1330 (M.D. Pa. filed July 12, 2009) [hereinafter Case No. 1330], Doc. 42; U.S. Commodity and Futures Trading Commission v. Healy, Civ. A. No. 1:09-CV-1331 (M.D. Pa filed July 12, 2009) [hereinafter Case No. 1331], Doc. 37), filed by the court- appointed receiver, Melanie E. Damian, Esq. (the "receiver"), and upon further consideration of defendant's opposition (Case No. 1330, Doc. 54; Case No. 1331, Doc. 48) to the receiver's motion, and it appearing that the receiver seeks the identity and location of bank accounts of defendant Sean Nathan Healy and relief defendant Shalese Rania Healy, pursuant to Rules 37 and 45(d)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26.3 of the Local Rules of the court, and the court's temporary restraining orders ("TROs") and preliminary injunctions (see Case No. 1330, Doc. 12, 21; Case No. 1331, Doc. 14, 19),*fn1 and it further appearing that Cash, the Healys' bodyguard, refuses to divulge the identity and location of at least one bank account of the Healys of which he has knowledge, on the basis that this information constitutes privileged work product because he "collected [it] while working as an investigator on behalf of [Sean Nathan] Healy's criminal counsel," and it further appearing that the receiver contends that the disclosure of such information is necessary for administration of the estate of Sean Nathan Healy (the "estate"), and that an exception to the work product doctrine applies to the information at issue, and the court concluding that the information at issue is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.