U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management LLC

Background

Triaxx Asset Management LLC and Phoenix Real Estate Solutions Ltd. (the TAM Parties) moved to compel Pacific Investment Management Company, LLC (PIMCO) to answer five interrogatories. The requests sought the identities of people who worked in PIMCO's “Securitized Debt” group, participated in decisions to purchase, sell, or hold notes, or reviewed or approved three objections sent by PIMCO's outside counsel to U.S. Bank National Association, acting as trustee of the Triaxx collateralized debt obligations.

The TAM Parties had also sought similar relief against Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, but withdrew that request after Goldman Sachs dismissed its claims in the action. The court addressed only the requests directed to PIMCO.

Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery must be nonprivileged, relevant to a party's claim or defense, and proportional to the needs of the case. The court explained that identifying witnesses with knowledge generally satisfies the relevance requirement under Local Civil Rule 33.3(a), but the requesting party still must show that the requested information is relevant to the actual claims and defenses.

For Interrogatory No. 1, the TAM Parties sought everyone who had worked in PIMCO's “Securitized Debt” group from 2006 onward. The court found that the request rested on speculation that the group members had the same knowledge as Giang Bui, the person identified by PIMCO, and declined to require PIMCO to disclose its employee directory.

For Interrogatory No. 2, the TAM Parties sought everyone involved in decisions to purchase, sell, or hold the notes. The court found that the request did not adequately show that all such people would know about the legal and factual issues in the case. It also found the request overbroad, disproportionate, and difficult to apply because it covered everyone involved in those decisions in any capacity. The TAM Parties could examine the portfolio manager identified in PIMCO's initial disclosures and could use information from that deposition or other sources to identify people with discoverable knowledge or serve a more narrowly tailored request.

Interrogatories Nos. 3 through 5 concerned people who reviewed or approved three objections underlying PIMCO's interpleader claims and counterclaim. The court found the identities of the people who approved the objections potentially relevant to issues concerning agreements between the noteholders and the trustee and the validity of allegations underlying PIMCO's objections. The court rejected PIMCO's position that attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine protected those identities. It distinguished the identities of decisionmakers who approved the objections from the broader group of people who merely reviewed them, which could include lawyers and clerical personnel.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the TAM Parties' letter-motion. PIMCO was required to promptly supplement its interrogatory responses by identifying the decisionmakers who approved each of the three objections underlying the interpleader claims. The motion was otherwise denied, including as to the requests seeking further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 and the broader request for everyone who reviewed the objections.

Judge Barbara Moses signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.