La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:19-cv-03800
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc., Magistrate Judge Aaron granted in part and denied in part a discovery motion in a Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation case.
Brian La Belle and Barclays Capital Inc.; the order governs Barclays’ production of specified whistleblowing and retaliation documents and any related privilege log.
What happened
In La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc., Brian La Belle asked Barclays to produce documents it had provided to New York’s financial-services agency about whistleblowing matters. His lawsuit alleges that Barclays fired him in retaliation for reporting misconduct under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The court considered two document requests. Barclays said it had no remaining documents responsive to Request No. 4, making that part of the motion moot. Barclays objected to Request No. 6 as too broad, irrelevant, disproportionate, and protected by legal privilege.
The court granted in part and denied in part La Belle’s motion. Magistrate Judge Aaron ordered Barclays to produce, within 30 days, documents provided to the agency about retaliation allegations from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018, when Barclays identified substantiated retaliation. Barclays may withhold privileged documents but must provide a privilege log.
The detailed version
- La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03800
- Stewart Aaron
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Plaintiff Brian La Belle moved to compel Defendant Barclays Capital Inc. to produce documents that Barclays had provided to the New York State Department of Financial Services concerning a whistleblowing consent order. The opinion states that La Belle’s complaint alleges Barclays terminated him on August 1, 2018, in retaliation for reporting misconduct. His complaint asserts one claim under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
The motion concerned Document Request Nos. 4 and 6. Barclays represented that it had no outstanding documents responsive to Request No. 4, so the court found that part of the motion moot. Request No. 6 sought broad categories of documents and information about whistleblowing complaints, efforts to identify anonymous whistleblowers, retaliation allegations, substantiated retaliation allegations, and decisions about whether whistleblowing concerns were false or malicious.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality requires consideration of factors including the importance of the issues, the amount at stake, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and its burden or expense.
Discussion and ruling
The court found Request No. 6 overbroad but concluded that a narrower group of documents should be produced. It ordered Barclays to produce all documents it provided to the New York State Department of Financial Services concerning instances from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018, in which:
1. A current or former Barclays employee, agent, or contractor alleged retaliation or other negative consequences for raising a whistleblowing complaint or concern; and 2. Barclays identified a substantiated allegation of retaliation.
The court allowed Barclays to withhold documents it contended were protected by privilege, but required Barclays to provide La Belle with a privilege log complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5). The court ordered production of the specified documents, or the privilege log for withheld documents, within 30 days of the order.
The court therefore granted in part and denied in part La Belle’s motion to compel.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.