Wells Fargo Securities, LLC v. LJM Investment Fund, L.P.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:18-cv-02020
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wells Fargo Securities v. LJM Investment Fund, Judge Cave denied WFS’s discovery-enforcement request without prejudice to renewal after the pending summary-judgment motion is resolved.
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC and LJM Investment Fund, L.P.; the order concerns WFS’s request for additional discovery-related production from LJM.
What happened
In Wells Fargo Securities, LLC v. LJM Investment Fund, L.P., Wells Fargo Securities asked the court to enforce an earlier discovery order. It sought deposition transcripts and exhibits from a related case, a privilege log, and other documents that LJM allegedly withheld.
Wells Fargo said the materials could be relevant because the two cases involved overlapping allegations about LJM’s losses and the roles of Wells Fargo and another firm. It also said LJM had not responded to its requests to discuss the dispute.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the request without prejudice to renewal after the court resolves LJM’s pending summary-judgment motion. The order directed the Clerk of Court to close the filing; it did not decide whether LJM ultimately must produce the requested materials.
The detailed version
- Wells Fargo Securities, LLC v. LJM Investment Fund, L.P. · No. 1:18-cv-02020
- Sarah Cave
- Apr. 14, 2025
Background
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (WFS), the plaintiff and counter-defendant, asked the court to enforce its September 29, 2023 discovery order. That order required the parties to continue supplementing their discovery after discovery had closed, including producing transcripts and exhibits from testimony in litigation involving former LJM employees, partners, affiliates, or agents. The order specifically identified the related Wedbush action.
WFS said depositions had taken place in the Wedbush action and that LJM had not produced the resulting transcripts or exhibits. WFS also asserted that the Wedbush action and this case contained overlapping allegations about LJM’s losses and the roles of WFS and Wedbush. According to WFS, LJM had not responded to WFS’s letters and email seeking the materials or a discussion of the dispute.
Requested relief
WFS asked the court to require LJM Investment Fund, L.P. to:
- produce transcripts and exhibits from depositions already taken in the Wedbush action; - continue supplementing its production as additional transcripts and exhibits became available; - produce the privilege log that LJM had provided in the Wedbush action; and - produce documents that LJM had treated as responsive in the Wedbush action but withheld in this case.
WFS also requested reimbursement of the reasonable costs of its request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). WFS argued that LJM’s failure to provide a timely privilege log could waive privilege, but it initially asked only for the log from the Wedbush action and related materials.
Ruling
The court denied WFS’s request at ECF No. 273 without prejudice to renewal after resolution of the pending summary-judgment motion at ECF No. 242. “Without prejudice” means the order did not bar WFS from renewing the request later. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF No. 273.
The order did not grant or deny the requested production of transcripts, exhibits, the privilege log, or other documents on the merits. It also did not resolve WFS’s request for costs. The excerpt does not explain further why the court chose to defer the request beyond referring to the pending summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.