Lam v. State Street Corporation

Background

Bonnie Lam sued State Street Corporation and State Street Trust & Bank Co., which the opinion collectively calls “State Street.” The opinion states that Lam brought nine claims alleging interference with protected medical leave, discrimination based on protected characteristics, and retaliation based on protected activities, including alleged whistleblowing. Discovery proceeded on an expedited schedule because of Lam’s cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

State Street reported that it had produced nearly 14,000 pages of electronically stored information after reviewing approximately 36,000 documents. The production occurred in stages based on the custodians involved and the deposition schedule.

Lam’s Discovery Requests

Lam moved to compel, meaning she asked the court to order additional discovery, in two categories:

1. Nonprivileged documents from seven agreed-upon custodians that mentioned “Bonnie” or “Lam” during the relevant period; and 2. Documents created before December 15, 2023 that State Street had withheld as privileged.

Under the federal discovery rules, discovery generally includes nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery must show that the requested information is discoverable.

Documents Mentioning “Bonnie” or “Lam”

State Street used searches pairing broad terms with other terms, such as “Terminat*” within ten words of “Bonnie” or “Lam.” It accepted all custodians proposed by Lam and ran 49 search terms across the agreed-upon custodians’ electronically stored information.

Lam argued that State Street’s added search terms excluded documents expressly discussing her. She sought all documents mentioning “Bonnie” or “Lam” without those additional terms. The court found that Lam had not identified a specific document or category of documents that State Street’s searches had missed. It also found that her claim that the seven custodians’ documents would likely support her case was speculation.

The court rejected Lam’s reliance on a termination list. It stated that a search for documents mentioning “Bonnie” or “Lam” would not find earlier versions of a list that did not mention Lam. The deposition testimony Lam cited also did not establish that earlier versions of a termination list existed or that they mentioned her.

The court further found the request disproportionate. A search for “Lam” produced 27,936 additional documents for review; a search for “Bonnie” produced 18,751; and a search for both terms together produced 12,113. The court concluded that the factual basis for believing the additional searches would produce meaningful relevant material was limited, while the burden of reviewing the documents was substantial. It therefore declined to compel production.

The court also rejected related requests for an adverse inference and cost-shifting. It stated that its ruling left no basis for either request.

Documents Withheld as Privileged

State Street’s categorical privilege log described, among other things, communications between State Street employees and State Street’s in-house legal team for the purpose of seeking or obtaining legal advice about employment-law issues. Attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.

Lam argued that State Street witnesses had testified that they did not speak with State Street lawyers about her situation before State Street terminated her on December 15, 2023. The court found that testimony insufficient to establish that no privileged documents existed. In its view, witnesses’ statements that they had not discussed Lam’s specific situation with attorneys did not rule out consultations about broader employment-law issues before her termination.

The court noted defense counsel’s representation that most of the withheld documents did not concern Lam or her separation, but instead involved matters such as contract compliance and advice about billing issues. The court also rejected Lam’s argument that State Street had waived privilege because of the categorical privilege log. It read the log as counsel’s representation that attorneys sent or received the communications and that the communications concerned legal advice.

Because Lam had not established that any nonprivileged documents remained to be produced, the court declined to order additional document discovery.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied Lam’s motion to compel. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 48. The opinion did not resolve the merits of Lam’s employment claims.