Securities and Exchange Commission v. Contrarian Press, LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:16-cv-06964
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Contrarian Press, Judge Broderick denied defendants’ discovery motion because SEC interview memoranda were protected work product.
The defendants were denied access to the requested witness interview memoranda, while the Securities and Exchange Commission’s memoranda remained protected and were ordered placed under seal.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Contrarian Press, LLC, the defendants asked for witness interview memoranda prepared by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s attorneys during the investigation and litigation of the matter.
The court reviewed the memoranda privately and found that they were protected attorney work product—materials prepared for anticipated litigation. The defendants did not show that they had a substantial need for the memoranda or could not obtain equivalent information without undue hardship.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the defendants’ discovery motion and ordered that the memoranda received from the Securities and Exchange Commission be placed under seal.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Contrarian Press, LLC · No. 1:16-cv-06964
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
The parties submitted a letter motion about a discovery dispute. The defendants sought witness interview memoranda that had been provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The memoranda were prepared by or at the direction of Securities and Exchange Commission attorneys during interviews conducted to help the Commission decide whether to bring litigation.
Analysis
The court reviewed the memoranda in camera, meaning privately rather than as part of the public record. It held that the memoranda were protected by the attorney work-product doctrine, which generally protects materials prepared by or for an attorney in anticipation of litigation.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A), a party seeking protected materials must show a substantial need for them and an inability to obtain their substantial equivalent without undue hardship. The court found that the defendants had not made that showing.
The court rejected the defendants’ reliance on a prior case involving Securities and Exchange Commission interview notes. In that case, production was ordered because the witnesses were unavailable for depositions after invoking their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The court found that the defendants had not shown a comparable need or hardship here.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ letter motion for discovery, docketed as Document 97. It also ordered that the witness interview memoranda received from the Securities and Exchange Commission be placed under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.