Milazzo v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation

Background

The parties submitted letters describing a discovery dispute. The plaintiff asked the court to require the defendant to submit additional investigation communications for in-camera inspection, meaning private review by the judge, beyond the meeting minutes and factual summaries the court had already ordered the defendant to submit. The plaintiff also asked to add Mr. Nichols and Mr. Wilson as potential comparators.

The defendant argued that the investigation communications were protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product protection because lawyers directed or participated in the investigation and the communications were primarily legal. It also argued that Nichols and Wilson did not fit the limits of the court’s May 2, 2024 ruling on potential comparators.

Rulings

The court denied the plaintiff’s request to require the defendant to submit the additional investigation communications for in-camera inspection. The court stated that, after considering the parties’ submissions, the communications appeared to be “primarily or predominantly of a legal character.”

The court also denied the plaintiff’s request to add Mr. Nichols and Mr. Wilson as comparators. It directed that its May 2, 2024 ruling be followed strictly and stated that the evidence concerning these two individuals did not support classifying them as potential comparators.

Because fact discovery had concluded and the parties had not filed the previously required joint letter, the court ordered them to file a letter by October 18, 2024—the then-current deadline for expert discovery—stating whether they wanted a referral to a magistrate judge for settlement discussions or wanted the court to schedule a post-fact-discovery conference. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket number 60.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The order addressed discovery requests. The provided opinion text does not state the underlying claims’ final merits or resolve the case as a whole.