Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

After a December 7, 2020 telephone conference, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued an order addressing several motions and discovery matters in Ashu Shukla’s case against Deloitte Consulting LLP. The order refers to an earlier October 13, 2020 order, a June 15, 2020 order, a November 17, 2020 report and order, and the Third Amended Complaint. It states that the Third Amended Complaint, not the Second Amended Complaint, is the operative pleading.

Motions for reconsideration

Shukla filed two motions for reconsideration of portions of the October 13 order. A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The first motion challenged the denial of Shukla’s request to partially vacate the June 15 order concerning the Second Amended Complaint. The court denied this motion as moot because the Third Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading.

The second motion challenged the denial of Shukla’s request that Magistrate Judge Aaron recuse himself, meaning step aside from the case. The court denied this motion. Applying the strict standard for reconsideration, the court found that Shukla had not identified anything the court overlooked that would change its decision not to recuse.

The first reconsideration motion also challenged the November 17 report and order. Magistrate Judge Aaron stated that he would not decide that challenge. Instead, Judge Nathan would decide it.

Motion to seal and objections

Shukla filed a motion to seal ECF No. 150, but later withdrew it. The court denied the motion as moot and asked the clerk to unseal ECF No. 150.

Shukla separately filed papers labeled as a motion for reconsideration of the November 17 report and order. The court construed those papers as objections under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Deloitte may respond, and Judge Nathan—not Magistrate Judge Aaron—will consider and rule on the objections.

Discovery directions

The court required each party, by January 8, 2021, to submit no more than ten categories of documents that the party believed remained to be produced. Each category had to be stated as a single document request without subparts. A party that had redacted documents for reasons other than privilege also had to explain and justify the redactions. Deloitte additionally had to describe the steps it took to locate Shukla’s custodial email box, including whether it found and searched backup tapes.

If Shukla sought changes to the October 21, 2020 protective order and Deloitte did not agree, Shukla’s January 8 submission also had to identify and justify the proposed changes. Each party could respond to the other’s January 8 submission by January 22, with responses limited to 20 double-spaced pages, and could file a reply by January 29, also limited to 20 pages. The court scheduled a telephone conference for February 11, 2021, to address the submissions.

Disposition

The court denied one reconsideration motion as moot, denied the other reconsideration motion, denied the sealing motion as moot, directed that ECF No. 150 be unsealed, referred the objections to Judge Nathan, and issued discovery deadlines and procedures. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.