Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Background

On March 18, 2019, the court approved a stipulation limiting the plaintiffs’ discovery concerning certain plea agreements and deferred-prosecution agreements. For the HSBC Defendants—HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.—the stipulation identified particular agreements and allowed depositions of their signatories or a corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), with topics limited to those agreements. The Bank of America Defendants were not included among the defendants for which the stipulation allowed those depositions.

The plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint included an HSBC order from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and two Bank of America consent orders. The plaintiffs later served deposition notices seeking discovery about those materials. On February 24, 2020, the court quashed the notices and topics to the extent they exceeded the stipulation, including the Bank of America Rule 30(b)(6) notice and HSBC topics concerning the HSBC Commodity Futures Trading Commission order. The plaintiffs did not seek reconsideration of that ruling at the time.

On June 4, 2020, the court allowed limited interrogatories to several defendants concerning communications with the government about the agreements named in the stipulation. The plaintiffs then filed letter motions asking to add the Bank of America Defendants and the HSBC Commodity Futures Trading Commission order to the stipulation, and asking to serve interrogatories on HSBC concerning communications with the government about a January 18, 2018, deferred-prosecution agreement.

Requests to Amend the Stipulation

The plaintiffs invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and the court’s inherent authority. The court rejected the Rule 60(b) argument because that rule applies to final judgments, orders, or proceedings, while the plaintiffs sought to change the stipulation in this case.

The court also rejected the request for reconsideration under its authority to reconsider interlocutory orders. It concluded that the requests were untimely attempts to revisit the February 24 ruling. The plaintiffs could have raised their arguments before that ruling but did not do so, and the court found that they had forfeited those newly raised arguments. The court also stated that the record did not show that the plaintiffs had failed to knowingly and voluntarily enter the stipulation or that enforcing it would be manifestly unjust. The court therefore declined to reconsider its prior order.

Interrogatories Concerning the 2018 Agreement

The plaintiffs also sought to serve interrogatories on the HSBC Defendants concerning communications with the government related to the January 18, 2018, deferred-prosecution agreement between the Department of Justice and HSBC Holdings PLC. HSBC opposed the request, arguing that the agreement was not relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims.

The court concluded that the agreement described conduct that was not so different from conduct the plaintiffs alleged was relevant to the action. The court limited the permitted discovery to the HSBC Defendants’ communications with the government concerning that agreement. The court noted that HSBC Holdings PLC was not a defendant in this action, but treated that fact as limiting the scope of the interrogatories rather than barring them altogether.

Disposition

The order states that the plaintiffs’ letter motions at Docket Nos. 549 and 557 were denied to the extent they sought to amend the stipulation and granted to the extent they sought to serve interrogatories on the HSBC Defendants about communications between those defendants and the government concerning the January 18, 2018, deferred-prosecution agreement. The HSBC Defendants’ letter motion at Docket No. 557 was denied as moot. The clerk was requested to close the motions at Docket Nos. 549, 557, and 568.