Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank of America Corporation, Judge Aaron resolved discovery, sealing, and scheduling issues without deciding the underlying case.
The order affected Norges Bank, the Barclays Defendants, the other parties to the action, and Defendants generally by setting discovery obligations, deadlines, and a further telephone conference.
What happened
Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank of America Corporation concerns several discovery and case-management disputes. After a telephone conference, the court ruled on whether a former employee was a proper document custodian for Norges Bank and addressed other pending matters.
The court found that the former employee had relevant information and was a proper custodian, while expressing no view on whether that knowledge could be attributed to anyone else. It granted the Barclays Defendants’ request for more time to determine whether certain audio files existed, granted the parties’ motions to seal, and approved the proposed schedule for producing Bloomberg chatroom transcripts. The court also ordered progress reports about hit-count reports and set deadlines for a joint discovery-status letter and another telephone conference.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued the order on December 17, 2020. The order addressed discovery and scheduling only; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 17, 2020
Background
Following a telephone conference with the parties, the court addressed several discovery, sealing, and scheduling matters in the action.
Rulings
Norges Bank’s discovery dispute
Regarding Plaintiff Norges Bank’s letter motion for discovery and the parties’ dispute about whether Norges Bank had to search the documents of a former employee, the court found that the former employee had knowledge of information relevant to the subject matter of the action and therefore was a proper custodian. A custodian is a person whose documents may be searched or collected for discovery. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether any of the former employee’s knowledge could be attributed to another person or entity.
Barclays Defendants’ extension request
The court granted the Barclays Defendants’ letter motion for an extension of time. Their deadline to determine whether “Early Period” audio files existed for certain custodians was extended to January 15, 2021. The order allowed them to seek another extension for good cause, provided that by December 31, 2020, they gave Plaintiffs the results of searches of New York servers for the two custodians who worked out of New York during the Early Period.
Motions to seal and production schedule
The court granted the parties’ outstanding letter motions to seal, citing the privacy interests involved and the need to balance those interests against the public’s presumptive right of access to judicial documents. The court also approved the schedule proposed in the parties’ joint letter concerning Defendants’ production of Bloomberg persistent chatroom transcripts.
Further discovery deadlines
By December 31, 2020, each Defendant was required to give Plaintiffs a progress report on generating hit-count reports. Each report had to include the Defendant’s best estimate of when it would provide those reports to Plaintiffs. By January 21, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. Eastern time, the parties had to file a joint letter about the status of discovery and any existing disputes. The parties were also directed to appear for another telephone conference on January 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern time.
Disposition and scope
The order granted the Barclays Defendants’ extension motion and granted the outstanding motions to seal. It also made findings and directives concerning discovery and case management. It did not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.