Bank of America, N.A. v. BDO Seidman, LLP
Opinion of the Court
In a letter to the Court dated December 6, 2007, from Daniel P. Stipano, Deputy Chief Counsel to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC letter”), sent in apparent response to this Court’s Memorandum and Order of November 26, 2007, this Court was asked to “amend its November 26th Order to allow the OCC until February 4, 2008 to obtain the return of the document or otherwise assure compliance with the OCC’s regulations.”
Letters to Judges about matters in litigation before them are not a preferred method of communication. Indeed, for the Judge a Memorandum such as this is just about the only way to respond. See, e.g., Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:09 — Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(B)(7) (“Ajudge shall not initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication concerning a pending or impending proceeding [except for certain matters not here relevant]”).
Further — while the Court will consider the request for additional time in the OCC letter — it is regretful that the parties are unable to work this matter out short of, quite literally, making a Federal case out of it. After all, this Court’s ruling was not without legal support in the form of citation to a Federal District Court decision
ORDER
The time for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to act in response to this Court’s Memorandum and Order On Motions Regarding OCC Report, is extended to February 4, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. to permit the OCC to take whatever action it considers appropriate.
The Merchants Bank v. Vescio, 205 B.R. 37 (D.Vt. 1997).
In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 1995).
Oliver Twist [1837-1838], ch. 51.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.