Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 1, 2020

Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:15-cv-09300
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Judge Schofield denied reconsideration and denied Plaintiffs’ requests for additional depositions and documents.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain depositions and documents from Defendants, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and UBS, and set deadlines for document production and Plaintiffs’ expert report.

What happened

Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. concerns Plaintiffs’ discovery requests about Defendants’ communications with the Department of Justice and related documents. The Court had previously ruled that the proposed depositions would not be allowed and directed the parties to discuss further document production.

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to reconsider the deposition ruling. It denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to compel documents identified in an earlier letter because Plaintiffs had not followed the Court’s September 10, 2020, order. It also denied the request to compel UBS letters because the letters concerned LIBOR, not foreign-exchange fines or calculations, and were not relevant to the case. The Court separately denied leave to serve a deposition notice on JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield also ordered Defendants to finish producing documents and privilege logs by October 22, 2020, and required Plaintiffs to produce their final expert report supporting class certification by November 23, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:15-cv-09300
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Oct. 1, 2020

Background

The order addressed discovery disputes after the July 20, 2020, deadline for completing fact discovery. During a September 10, 2020, conference, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs could not take the depositions they proposed because the individuals were primarily in-house lawyers who learned information through privileged communications. The Court stated that document discovery was the more proportional and effective approach in this situation.

The Court then directed the parties to meet and confer about additional documents or information concerning Defendants’ communications with the United States Department of Justice related to plea agreements referenced in an earlier stipulation. Plaintiffs later submitted letters asking the Court to revisit the deposition ruling, compel documents identified in an earlier joint letter, and compel UBS to produce letters written by its counsel to the Government.

Rulings

The Court construed Plaintiffs’ request to revisit the deposition ruling as a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is a request to change an earlier ruling based on an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious injustice. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration because Plaintiffs had not identified any of those grounds.

The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents identified in the August 21, 2020, letter because Plaintiffs had not complied with the September 10, 2020, order. The denial allowed Plaintiffs to renew the request. The Court required any renewed motion by October 8, 2020, to identify each unresolved document dispute after the parties had met and conferred.

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the UBS letters. It found that the letters contained no information about foreign-exchange fines or fine calculations, concerned LIBOR rather than foreign exchange, and therefore were not relevant to the action.

The Court ordered Defendants to complete document production, including related privilege logs, by October 22, 2020. Plaintiffs were required to produce their final expert report supporting class certification within 30 days after that date, or by November 23, 2020.

Finally, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for permission to serve a deposition notice on JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., for substantially the reasons stated in JPMorgan’s response.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.