Judge Defers Ruling on Mets' Madoff Case A federal judge in Manhattan said Thursday that he would rule by March 5 on motions that could alter the face of the lawsuit against the owners of the Mets filed by the trustee for Bernard L. Madoff's victims. Jed S. Rakoff, a United State District Court judge, heard more than two hours of oral arguments by both sides before deferring his decision. His only ruling was to toss out the trustee's two expert witnesses and the one offered by the Mets" owners, John Maine, who has the same name as a former pitcher for the team. A jury trial is scheduled to begin on March 19. In their motion for summary judgment, the Mets" owners asked Rakoff to dismiss all remaining claims in the lawsuit. The trustee wants summary judgment on a claim that would let him recover $83 million in what he calls fictitious profits that the Mets" owners received through their Madoff accounts. The arguments focused to a great degree on two major elements of the case against Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, the Mets" owners: one, that they turned a blind eye to signs that Madoff might have been a fraud, and two, whether they were sophisticated investors who would have been wise to those signs. Rakoff was quite interested in deposition testimony by Noreen Harrington, a chief investment officer of Sterling Stamos, a hedge fund co-owned by Sterling Equities, Wilpon's and Katz's holding company. She said that in 2003 she warned Katz that Madoff's returns were the result of front-running, a form of insider trading, or were a fiction. She said that Katz got angry at the suggestion that Madoff might be a phony. Rakoff, who read aloud portions of Harrington's testimony, was curious about Katz's reaction when she cast doubt on Sterling Stamos investing in a fund that fed its clients" money to Madoff to invest. "Why get angry at that?" he asked Karen Wagner, the Mets" lead lawyer. He said Katz's reaction would have made more sense if he had asked her to come up with evidence to back her claims and she did not. "A reasonable juror could say that he got angry before he even asks for an explanation," Rakoff added. Katz said in his deposition that he did not remember the meeting. Harrington testified that when she asked to meet with Madoff, Katz said no. She did not follow up on her request and left Sterling Stamos soon after. "It's hard to see that the failure to give her that meeting can be taken as evidence of willful blindness," Rakoff said.