Bay Street Advisors, LLC v. Mahoney

Nature of the matter

Bay Street Advisors, LLC, identified as the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, submitted a letter-motion requesting a pre-motion discovery conference under Local Rule 37.2 and the judge’s individual practices. The request concerned responses to subpoenas for documents served on former employees Zachary Brenneman, Joshua Robinson, and Susan Yie.

Arguments described in the letter

Bay Street Advisors asserted that the former employees had produced only a small number of documents in response to fourteen requests and had relied on general objections. The company challenged objections that responsive documents were not “uniquely” within the former employees’ possession, custody, or control, arguing that the existence of potentially responsive documents held by CZP did not excuse the former employees from responding.

The requests covered communications and documents concerning the former employees’ prospective employment with or recruitment by CZP; their plans to leave BSA; the Resignation Transition Plan and Agreement; communications about clients with whom Mahoney had worked; and BSA records, including market maps, market intelligence studies, status reports, and pitchbooks. Bay Street Advisors also argued that any documents withheld based on attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine should be identified in a privilege log.

The letter claimed that these materials were relevant to Bay Street Advisors’s allegations concerning Mahoney’s solicitation of former employees and clients, breach of customer non-solicitation obligations, and retention or misappropriation of BSA work product. These were arguments made in the letter; the provided text does not show a ruling resolving those underlying allegations.

Court’s action

The court’s endorsed order directed Bay Street Advisors to serve a copy of the letter-motion and its exhibits on the former employees and to provide proof of service. It stated that the former employees’ response was due under the judge’s individual practices within three court days after service.

The provided text does not show that the court granted or denied Bay Street Advisors’s request to compel discovery, ruled on the objections, or decided whether any documents were privileged. The disposition shown is therefore a procedural discovery-management order rather than a merits ruling.

Judge and name discrepancy

The order is signed “Barbara Moses, U.S.M.J.” Although the supplied metadata identifies Ronnie Abrams as the judge, the provided opinion text identifies Barbara Moses as the judicial officer who issued and signed this order.