Sterling Select II Advisory LLC v. Argus Information and Advisory Services

Background

Sterling Select moved to compel discovery from Argus Information & Advisory Services, LLC and Argus Information & Advisory Services, Inc., which the court referred to together as “Argus.” Sterling Select sought two categories of information. Argus opposed the motion, arguing that the requests were irrelevant and unduly burdensome.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery may concern nonprivileged information that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court explained that relevance in discovery is broad but not unlimited, and that courts may consider factors such as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and whether its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit.

First Discovery Category: Information After 2022

Sterling Select requested information from January 1, 2016, through the present. Argus agreed to produce information only through 2022. The court agreed with Argus that a blanket request for information after 2022 was irrelevant and, alternatively, unduly burdensome.

The court relied on the allegations described in the amended complaint. It noted that the relevant contracts expired by their terms in 2020 and that the alleged lost business opportunities concerned the period from 2017 through 2022. Although Sterling Select pointed to a nondisclosure agreement whose provisions allegedly survived the end of the parties’ business relationship, the court observed that Sterling Select had not alleged conduct by Argus after 2022 involving a breach of that agreement or misuse of trade secrets.

The court stated that Sterling Select could renew its motion to compel if it made a more targeted request for specific information after 2022 and Argus objected to producing it.

Second Discovery Category: Nielsen Documents

Sterling Select also sought all documents and communications concerning Nielsen. Argus agreed to produce responsive documents to the extent they related to the specific Nielsen opportunities alleged in the complaint, but objected to producing every document that merely referenced Nielsen.

The court again agreed with Argus. It recognized that the amended complaint contained allegations about Argus’s relationship with Nielsen and alleged that Argus improperly shared confidential information with Nielsen. But the court found that the remaining Nielsen-related documents did not relate to those allegations and therefore were not relevant. Because the request covered documents involving Nielsen that might not relate to the parties’ claims or defenses, the court found the request overly broad and unduly burdensome.

The court stated that Sterling Select could file a motion to compel concerning a narrower, Nielsen-specific request if Argus objected to that request.

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan denied Sterling Select’s motion to compel. The court directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 136. The order addressed the scope and proportionality of discovery; it did not decide the underlying claims described in the amended complaint.