to government officials. H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 1951-52 (internal citations omitted). 8 See, £5 Complaint, SEC v. Panalpina, Inc., No. 10-cv-4334 (S.D. Tex. Noy. 4, 2010), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter SEC v. Panalpina, Inc.|, available at http ://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/20 10/comp2 1727.pdf; Criminal I

http: //www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fepa/ cases/ petersong/ petersong-information.pdf; Plea Agreement, United States v. Stanley, No. 08-cr-597 (S.D. Tex. 2008), ECF No. 9 [hereinafter United States v. Stanley] , available at http ://www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/ fcpa/ cases/, stanleya/ 09-03-08stanl

of more plaintiffs .. . would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment.”’); cf. Arthur v. Stern, 2008 WL 2620116, at *7 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (Under Rule 15, “courts have held that leave to amend to assert a claim already at issue in [another lawsuit] should not be granted if the same

ional hearings in which the victims participated, satisfying their CVRA rights. See United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 660 (S.D. Tex. 2009). 7 558 F. Supp. 2d 411 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017613 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 11 of 31 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology

nc., 130 S. Ct. 3541 (2010) oes 124 Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) oes 124, 136, 137 Abecassis v. Wyatt, 785 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Tex. 2011) ...... 68, 71, 101, 118 WESTLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365 --- PAGE BREAK --- In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2

d appropriate to further the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. See, e.g., In re Enron Corp. Securities Litigation, 206 F.R.P. 427, 438 (S.D. Tex. 2002). At the same time, there is no conceivable prejudice or confusion that would result from consolidation for purposes of pretrial discovery.

that will enable [them] to exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason,

of more plaintiffs .. . would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment.”); cf. Arthur v. Stern, 2008 WL 2620116, at *7 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (Under Rule 15, “courts have held that leave to amend to assert a claim already at issue in [another lawsuit] should not be granted if the same

that will enable [them] to exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason,