SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-06543
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In SVB Financial Trust v. FDIC, Judge DeMarchi ordered SVBFT to obtain and promptly produce directors’ and officers’ documents sought by FDIC-C.
SVB Financial Trust, FDIC-C, and the former and current Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group directors and officers whose documents were sought.
What happened
In SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC-C sought documents from the custodial files of Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group’s directors and officers in response to four discovery requests. SVBFT argued that only three individuals were relevant custodians.
The court found that the requests sought relevant and proportional documents. It also found that, when the requests were served, SVBFG had the legal right to obtain responsive documents from its then-current directors and officers. The court noted that the record did not show the directors and officers had failed to preserve responsive materials.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered SVBFT to demand responsive documents from all SVBFG directors and officers who served during March 10–17, 2023, and promptly produce them to FDIC-C. SVBFT also had to report by February 28, 2025, whether it expected to obtain the documents and when production was expected; FDIC-C could subpoena people whose documents SVBFT could not collect.
The detailed version
- SVB Financial Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · No. 5:23-cv-06543
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
The court addressed a discovery dispute concerning Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in its corporate capacity’s requests for production 8, 18, 19, and 21. Those requests sought documents from the custodial files of Silicon Valley Bank Financial Group’s directors and officers. Defendants in a related case also participated in the hearing and joined FDIC-C’s arguments.
SVBFT argued that the only relevant custodians were Messrs. Kosturos, Grossi, and Liu. The court considered the parties’ arguments in their January 30, 2025 discovery-dispute letter and at the February 18 hearing.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, on October 21, 2024, when FDIC-C served the requests, SVBFG had the legal right to obtain responsive documents upon demand from its then-current directors and officers. The court said it was unclear whether SVBFT, which had been substituted in place of SVBFG, currently had the same right to demand the documents from directors and officers who were no longer serving.
The court also noted that SVBFT said a preservation notice had been provided to each then-current director and officer in March 2023. Although the record appeared to show that SVBFG had not collected those materials before the directors were removed on November 7, 2024, nothing in the record suggested that the directors and officers had failed to preserve responsive documents.
The court found that the four requests sought documents relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.
Order
The court ordered SVBFT to demand responsive documents from all SVBFG directors and officers who served at any time from March 10 through March 17, 2023, and to promptly produce those documents to FDIC-C.
The court also ordered SVBFT to advise FDIC-C by February 28, 2025, whether it expected to obtain the responsive documents from each former director and officer and, if so, the anticipated production dates. If SVBFT could not collect and produce documents from a former director or officer, FDIC-C could subpoena that person as allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court said it would consider shifting the costs of issuing, serving, or enforcing a subpoena to SVBFT if FDIC-C applied for that relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.