Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Allianz Global Investors v. Bank of America, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied without prejudice a request to modify a protective order and set discovery deadlines.
The plaintiffs and defendants involved in the case’s custodial-document discovery, including BNP Paribas, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and PIMCO.
What happened
Allianz Global Investors GmbH and other plaintiffs asked to change a confidentiality order in their case against Bank of America Corporation and other defendants. The request arose while the parties were handling disputes about reviewing electronically stored documents and emails.
The court said the plaintiffs had not met the strict standard required to modify the protective order. It also directed BNP Paribas, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and PIMCO to take specified steps concerning document review, meet and confer about disputes, and file status letters if needed.
The court denied the request to modify the protective order without prejudice and entered several discovery deadlines, including a June 17, 2021 telephone conference. Stewart D. Aaron, the United States Magistrate Judge, also encouraged the parties to consider technology-assisted document review.
The detailed version
- Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-10364
- Lorna Schofield
- May 7, 2021
Background
After a telephone conference, the court addressed the plaintiffs’ request to amend the stipulation and second amended confidentiality order entered at ECF No. 767. The request was made in connection with the procedural posture of a second foreign-exchange action filed in the United Kingdom. The parties also had unresolved disputes about certain parties’ review of custodial discovery, meaning electronically stored information collected from document custodians.
Rulings on the Protective Order and Discovery
The court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request to modify the protective order. The court stated that the plaintiffs had not met the strict standard for modifying a protective order applicable in the Southern District of New York and that, given the procedural posture of the second United Kingdom action, there was no compelling need to modify the order at that time.
The court also issued discovery directions:
- BNP Paribas was ordered to use its best efforts to provide complete hit reports to the plaintiffs by May 25, 2021. On that date, BNP Paribas also had to file a letter reporting on its data vendors’ operations and identifying the earliest feasible dates for providing complete hit reports, if still incomplete, and beginning its review of custodial documents. - Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley each had to provide the plaintiffs by May 12, 2021, with details of their sampling reviews, including the number of documents reviewed and representative samples. The plaintiffs and each entity then had to meet and confer in good faith to try to reduce the reported hit counts. If disputes remained, each was required to join in a letter stating the parties’ positions by May 25, 2021. - Defendants and PIMCO had to meet and confer in good faith to try to reduce PIMCO’s hit counts. If disputes remained, they had to file a joint letter stating their positions by May 25, 2021.
The court advised that its current intention was ultimately to require Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and PIMCO to begin reviewing custodial emails by June 25, 2021. The court encouraged the parties to consider technology-assisted review, including predictive coding, for reviewing and producing electronically stored information. The parties also had to file a joint discovery-status letter by June 15, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. Eastern time, and appear for a telephone conference on June 17, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time.
Effect of the Order
This was a discovery-management order rather than a decision on the underlying claims. The request to amend the protective order was denied without prejudice, and the parties received additional obligations and deadlines for resolving document-review disputes. The order was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.