Gilani v. Deloitte LLP

Background

After two November 2024 case-management conferences, the court received at least 17 submissions, most from Plaintiff Asad Gilani. Magistrate Judge Gary Stein found that the parties had submitted too many discovery disputes without first making good-faith efforts to resolve them. The order addressed the remaining issues raised in those submissions but stated that disputes concerning the protective order, Gilani’s discovery demands, and nonparty subpoenas would be addressed at the December 18, 2024 conference.

Electronic Information

At the November 15 conference, Gilani agreed that electronic information would generally be produced as searchable PDF files, except that Excel files could be produced in their original format. Because the parties’ discussions about a written electronic-information protocol were unproductive, the court no longer required them to enter one. Instead, the court directed Defendants to produce emails and other electronic information, except Excel files, as searchable PDFs. Defendants were also directed to make a good-faith effort to provide reasonably accessible email metadata, including by exporting metadata into a corresponding Excel file if feasible. If that was not feasible, Defendants were directed to promptly notify the court in writing.

Defendants and Docket Changes

The court clarified that individuals or entities that had not been served and were not listed as defendants on the docket were not defendants in the action. It identified Raj Mehta, Rahul Chodavarapu, Ashim Kumar, Sankar Prabhukumar, Deloitte Financial Advisory Services, LLP, and Canada Consulting LLP as not being defendants.

Defendants asked the court to terminate three entities that Gilani had named only in connection with employee-benefit claims that the court had dismissed in a September 4, 2024 order. The court granted that request and directed the Clerk to remove these parties from the docket: Deloitte Retirement Committee, as Plan Administrator for the Deloitte Pension Plan; Deloitte Retirement Committee, as Plan Administrator of the Deloitte for the Deloitte 401(k) Plan; and Deloitte LLP as Plan Administrator of Deloitte LLP Group Insurance Plan.

Gilani requested an extension of time to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its ruling denying his request to add Deloitte Transaction and Business, LLP, and Deloitte Canada, LP, as defendants. The court denied that request as moot because it had not set a deadline for such a motion. The court nevertheless stated that Gilani’s submissions did not contain a legal or factual basis for reconsidering the ruling.

Deadlines and Settlement Conference

The court accepted Gilani’s unopposed request to receive the same amount of time as Defendants to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. That arrangement would be included in a separate case-management plan. The court also accepted his unopposed request to have his deposition conducted after written discovery was substantially complete.

The court stated that no settlement conference had yet been scheduled. It said the parties would discuss timing at the December 18 telephone conference and noted that the January 23, 2025 status conference could be converted into a pre-settlement conference at the parties’ request.

Disability Accommodations and Other Disposition

The court granted Gilani’s request for disability accommodations. The court stated that specific accommodation requests could be discussed at the upcoming conference. In a footnote, it denied Gilani’s request for Defendants to arrange round-trip Uber transportation between his home and the courthouse for a settlement conference.

The Clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 196 and 202. This order addressed discovery and related case-management matters; it did not decide the underlying merits of the action.