Each depositor insured to at least $250,000 per insured bank


Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders





FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders



ED&O Home | Search Form | Text Search | ED&O Help


{{7-8-05 p.5282.1}
{{11-30-05 p.5282.1}

[5,282] In the Matter of Randolph W. Lenz, J. Donald Weand, Jr., Marcial Cuevas, Jack W. Dunlap, Steven B. Levine, Timothy S. Reed, Brian A. Marks, Marshall C. Asche, Connecticut Bank of Commerce, Stamford, Connecticut, Docket Nos. 02-174e, 02-158e, 02-160c&b, 02-161c&b, 02-175k, 02-176k, 02-177k, 02-178k, 02-179k, 02-180k, 02-181k, 02-182k (9-30-04). (This order, only as pertaining to J. Donald Weand, was terminated by order of the FDIC dated 7-8-05; see ¶16,428.)

FDIC dismisses respondent's Petition for Stay of June 17, 2004 Decision and Order on Interlocutory Review.

[.1] Mootness—Court action moots motions

In the Matter of
RANDOLPH W. LENZ,
J. DONALD WEAND, JR.,
MARCIAL CUEVAS,
JACK W. DUNLAP,
STEVEN B. LEVINE,
TIMOTHY S. REED,
BRIAN A MARKS, and
MARSHALL C. ASCHE,
individually and as former institution-affiliated parties of
CONNECTICUT BANK OF COMMERCE
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
(Insured State Nonmember Bank in Receivership)
DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDER ON INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW

FDIC-02-174e
FDIC-02-158e
FDIC-02-160c&b
FDIC-02-161c&b
FDIC-02-175k
FDIC-02-176k
FDIC-02-177k
FDIC-02-178k
FDIC-02-179k
FDIC-02-180k
FDIC-02-181k
FDIC-02-182k

On June 17, 2004, the Executive Secretary of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), pursuant to authority delegated by the FDIC Board of Directors (Board) under 12 C.F.R. §308.102(b)(2)(ii), issued a Decision and Order (Order) denying Respondent Randolph W. Lenz's ("Lenz") Petition for Interlocutory Review (Petition) filed on March 16, 2004. In his Petition, Lenz had sought Board review and reversal of a March 2, 2004 order by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) directing that he produce a privilege log identifying documents withheld from discovery. On June 24, 2004, in response to the Order, the ALJ ordered that the privilege log be produced by July 16, 2004. On July 19, 2004, the ALJ extended the production deadline until August 31, 2004. In the meantime, on July 2, 2004, Lenz filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) a petition for a writ of mandamus (Mandamus Petition) seeking relief from the Order. Thereafter, on August 11, 2004, the FDIC received from Lenz a Motion for Stay of the June 17, 2004, Decision and Order on Interlocutory Review (Stay Motion). In his Stay Motion, which was dated August 2, 2004, Lenz requested that the ALJ's Order be stayed until the D.C. Circuit resolved his Mandamus Petition. At the same time, Lenz filed in the D.C. Circuit a Motion to Expedite Consideration of his Mandamus Petition (Motion to Expedite).

FDIC Enforcement Counsel (Enforcement Counsel), in a pleading dated August 16, 2004, filed in the D.C. Circuit a Response to Lenz's Mandamus Petition stating that because the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had on July 27, 2004 issued an order granting Enforcement Counsel full access to the documents seized by the FBI, the ALJ's Order and Lenz's Mandamus Petition was moot. In other words, because FDIC Enforcement Counsel now has complete access to the documents which Lenz had previously withheld from discovery, it is no longer necessary for Lenz to produce a privilege log. In a response to Lenz's Stay Motion, also dated August 16, 2004, Enforcement Counsel reiterated its argument that the Order is moot.

[.1] In an Order filed on August 30, 2004, the D.C. Circuit ordered that Lenz's Mandamus Petition and Motion to Expedite be dismissed as moot in light of Enforcement Counsel's representation that it no longer seeks from Lenz a privilege log. For the same reason, Lenz's Stay Motion is moot and is hereby dismissed.
{{11-30-05 p.5282.2}

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED, that Lenz's Motion for Stay of June 17, 2004 Decision and Order on Interlocutory Review is dismissed.

Pursuant to delegated authority, upon the advice and recommendation of the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 30th day of September, 2004.



ED&O Home | Search Form | Text Search | ED&O Help






Last Updated 11/10/2005 legal@fdic.gov