Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-06221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Bank of America Corp.: Judge Failla granted a conference request about reopening discovery and terminated the pending motion.
The plaintiffs and JPMorgan defendants in the pending case; the order scheduled a conference about the plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery and terminated that pending motion.
What happened
In Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation, the plaintiffs sought to reopen discovery so they could serve JPMorgan with questions about preserving communications on employees’ personal devices.
JPMorgan opposed the request, arguing that the plaintiffs had already received the required device-related discovery and had waited too long to seek more information. JPMorgan also disputed the plaintiffs’ claim that it had previously made misleading statements about employee communications.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the plaintiffs’ request for a conference about the discovery motion, ordered a telephone conference for March 3, 2022, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion. The order did not state a ruling on whether discovery would ultimately be reopened.
The detailed version
- Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:17-cv-06221
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs asked to reopen discovery to serve JPMorgan with “spoliation-related interrogatories” concerning the preservation and production of communications on employees’ personal devices. Spoliation refers to the loss, destruction, or non-preservation of potentially relevant evidence.
JPMorgan’s opposition letter stated that the parties had addressed personal-device discovery during the discovery period. According to JPMorgan, it had told the plaintiffs in May 2019 that it issued litigation holds covering relevant phone data, reminded relevant employees to preserve responsive information, and asked them to provide certain messages. The parties later entered into a July 2019 agreement governing mobile-device discovery. JPMorgan stated that it provided the discovery required by that agreement and produced the potentially relevant text messages it identified. Document discovery closed on May 1, 2020.
The plaintiffs relied in part on a December 2021 Securities and Exchange Commission order concerning employees’ use of personal devices. JPMorgan argued that the order did not mention the stock-lending subject or the 2009-to-2016 period involved in this case and did not establish that additional discovery was warranted.
Parties’ Positions
JPMorgan argued that the proposed interrogatories were duplicative and untimely because the plaintiffs had known about its preservation efforts since 2019 and did not seek additional information before discovery closed. JPMorgan also argued that the communications cited by the plaintiffs did not contain the alleged misleading representations. Finally, JPMorgan contended that the plaintiffs had received all personal-device discovery required by the parties’ agreement.
The opinion text supplied does not include a merits ruling by the court on those arguments. It includes JPMorgan’s opposition letter and the court’s order addressing the plaintiffs’ request for a conference.
Court’s Action
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the plaintiffs’ request for a conference regarding the discovery motion. The court directed the parties to appear for a telephone conference on March 3, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 527. The order did not say that the court granted or denied the request to reopen discovery itself.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.