Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation, Judge Schofield overruled discovery objections and granted three motions to seal filings.
Norges Bank, the defendants, the Subject Employee, and the parties’ discovery process were affected. The Subject Employee remained a permitted discovery custodian, and specified unredacted filings remained sealed.
What happened
Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation concerned whether a former Norges Bank employee should be included among the people whose records defendants could search in discovery.
Norges Bank objected to a magistrate judge’s ruling that the employee was a proper records custodian, arguing that the employee had not worked for its investment division or participated in the trades at issue. Defendants argued that the employee had traded foreign currency for Norges Bank, communicated with defendants about that trading, and had relevant foreign-exchange experience and research.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield overruled the objections, concluding that the employee’s work, communications, and research could relate to the claims. She also granted three motions to seal unredacted filings, which will remain sealed to protect personal data and privacy interests.
The detailed version
- Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 21, 2021
Background
Norges Bank sought a protective order excluding a former employee (the “Subject Employee”) from the list of custodians whose documents defendants could obtain in discovery. A magistrate judge ruled on December 17, 2020, that the Subject Employee was a person with knowledge relevant to the subject matter of the action and was therefore a proper custodian.
Norges Bank objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). It argued that the magistrate judge used the wrong relevance standard and that the Subject Employee had never worked for Norges Bank Investment Management, had not participated in the trades for which Norges Bank sought relief, and had no involvement in related policies, procedures, strategies, or communications. Norges Bank also stated that the Subject Employee worked for the central banking division for less than three years during the relevant period, while the investment and central banking divisions operated independently.
Defendants Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., responding on behalf of defendants, argued that Norges Bank was the plaintiff of record and that the Subject Employee’s work was relevant. They stated that the employee traded foreign currency for Norges Bank, communicated in chat rooms with defendants about that trading, had been assigned to the Bank of England as a foreign-exchange dealer, and had published research about the foreign-exchange market.
Discovery Objections
The court explained that discovery orders are generally non-dispositive, meaning they do not decide the underlying lawsuit. Under Rule 72(a), a district judge must modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court also described discovery as covering nonprivileged information relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Relevance in discovery is broad and includes information that could reasonably lead to other information bearing on an issue in the case.
The court OVERRULED Norges Bank’s objections. It held that the December 17, 2020, order was not clearly erroneous because the Subject Employee’s work as a foreign-exchange trader, chats with defendants, and research on the foreign-exchange market could bear on the claims at issue.
Motions to Seal
Norges Bank moved to seal the unredacted versions of its objections and reply, and defendants moved to seal the unredacted version of their opposition. The court GRANTED the motions to seal at Docket Nos. 718, 721, and 726. The unredacted objections, opposition, and reply will remain sealed. The court stated that sealing was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of personal data protected by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and to protect the Subject Employee’s privacy interests.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 718, 721, 725, 726, 727, and 730.
Effect of the Order
The order allowed the Subject Employee to remain a discovery custodian and kept the identified unredacted filings under seal. It did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.