Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Background

The court’s case-management order required fact discovery to be completed by July 20, 2020. The court later permitted limited additional fact discovery concerning documents or information that were, or reflected, communications between the defendants and the United States Department of Justice related to and leading up to plea agreements referenced in a March 18, 2018, stipulation.

The parties identified discovery disputes in letters and discussed them at a September 10, 2020, conference. On October 1, 2020, the court treated the plaintiffs’ assertion that many requested items had not been provided as a motion to compel, denied that motion without prejudice to renewal, and directed the plaintiffs to identify specifically the documents still in dispute.

Motion to Compel Documents Other Than the UBS Letters

The plaintiffs’ October 14, 2020, pre-motion letter sought six categories of material, including documents about total foreign-exchange fix-order volume, the defendants’ foreign-exchange market share, the Department of Justice’s methodology for calculating fines, overlapping financial sanctions, materials referenced in the defendants’ responses, and notes or memoranda reflecting communications with the government.

The court construed the October 14 letter as a motion to compel. The motion was DENIED for substantially the reasons stated in the defendants’ October 19 response. The court noted that, except for UBS, the defendants had either produced responsive documents or identified them as privileged on a privilege log. The court also held that the requests exceeded the scope of the limited additional fact discovery and that the October 14 letter identified broad categories rather than specific documents about which the parties had met and conferred without reaching agreement.

The UBS Letters

The plaintiffs separately sought letters that UBS identified in its interrogatory answers as having been written by UBS’s counsel to the government. The defendants stated that the letters contained no information about foreign-exchange fines or fine calculations and concerned LIBOR, not foreign exchange. On October 1, 2020, the court had denied the plaintiffs’ request for those letters because it found them not relevant to the action.

The plaintiffs’ October 13, 2020, letter instead asked the court to compel UBS to produce all communications between UBS and the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs argued that the UBS letters focused on foreign-exchange violations and related to the possibility that a prior non-prosecution agreement concerning LIBOR could be breached or revoked if UBS violated the law again.

The court construed this request as a motion for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court held that the plaintiffs had identified none of those grounds, specifically including no new evidence that became available after their September 30, 2020, response. The motion for reconsideration was DENIED.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to compel and denied the motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 669.