Securities And Exchange Commission v. Prakash

Background

The parties submitted a discovery dispute concerning Defendant Vidul Prakash’s request to compel Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission to produce notes from a February 2022 interview of Daniel Purdy. Purdy was a former View, Inc. vice president of field operations. The dispute concerned whether View would pay shipping and installation costs for defective windows for all customers or only on a case-by-case basis. Prakash sought the notes because Purdy did not remember what he discussed during the interview, and the contents could bear on the Commission’s theory of liability.

Work-Product Protection

The court held that the Commission’s interview notes were work product because they were prepared during the Commission’s pre-suit investigation in anticipation of litigation. The court rejected Prakash’s arguments that the protection did not apply and that the Commission had waived it through limited disclosures. The court distinguished disclosures about questions or possible interview subjects from selective disclosure of portions of the notes.

The court treated Prakash’s request as seeking fact work product—the factual account of what Purdy said—rather than opinion work product. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A), fact work product may be obtained when the requesting party shows substantial need and cannot obtain the material’s substantial equivalent without undue hardship. The court found that Prakash met both requirements because Purdy appeared to have discussed a key issue and could not recall the interview. The court rejected the Commission’s contrary arguments.

Order

Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered the Commission to submit all three sets of notes to the court by email for in camera review, meaning private review by the judge, by March 13, 2025. Handwritten notes had to be submitted with a transcription if one already existed, and the notes had to highlight portions concerning anything Purdy said about the all-costs-versus-case-by-case issue. The court stated that it would decide whether Prakash was entitled to any portion of the notes after completing that review.

The court denied Prakash’s request for similar interview memoranda from the Commission’s pre-suit investigation because he did not explain their relevance or substantial need. The order therefore required submission of the February 2022 interview notes for review but did not yet order production of any portion of those notes.