U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:18-cv-04044
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In U.S. Bank v. Triaxx, Judge Moses granted PIMCO’s request only to schedule a discovery conference about three proposed depositions.
PIMCO, Triaxx Asset Management LLC, Phoenix Real Estate Solutions Ltd., and the three proposed deposition witnesses were affected by the order scheduling a discovery conference; the order did not decide whether the depositions could occur.
What happened
U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management LLC concerns a request by Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (PIMCO) for protection from three depositions sought by Triaxx Asset Management LLC and Phoenix Real Estate Solutions Ltd. PIMCO said one proposed witness was its in-house lawyer and the other two were senior business executives.
PIMCO argued that the lawyer’s testimony would involve attorney-client privilege and protection for materials prepared for expected litigation. It also argued that the two executives lacked unique relevant knowledge, that their testimony would duplicate information available from another PIMCO witness, and that some proposed subjects were irrelevant to the case.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the application only to the extent that the court would hold a discovery conference on April 21, 2022. The order set deadlines for the TAM Parties’ opposition and PIMCO’s optional reply; it did not itself enter the requested protective order or rule on whether the depositions could ultimately occur.
The detailed version
- U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management LLC · No. 1:18-cv-04044
- Barbara Moses
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
PIMCO asked the court to schedule a discovery conference concerning a protective order for three depositions noticed by Triaxx Asset Management LLC (TAM) and Phoenix Real Estate Solutions Ltd. The proposed witnesses were Richard LeBrun, PIMCO’s Deputy General Counsel; Sharad Bansal; and Alfred Murata. PIMCO said it had already agreed to provide one fact witness and a corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which permits a deposition of an organization through a designated representative.
PIMCO’s arguments
PIMCO argued that Mr. LeBrun’s testimony would be protected by the attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications for legal advice, and the work-product doctrine, which protects certain materials and mental impressions prepared for expected litigation. PIMCO said Mr. LeBrun had acted as in-house counsel in managing the current litigation and an earlier related interpleader proceeding, and that his approval of PIMCO’s objections to payments was made in consultation with outside litigation counsel.
PIMCO also argued that depositions of Mr. Bansal and Mr. Murata would be irrelevant or cumulative. According to PIMCO, the proposed testimony concerned PIMCO’s reasons for acquiring and holding notes in the Triaxx 2007-1 transaction and Mr. Bansal’s knowledge of litigation involving Phoenix. PIMCO said the court had already denied TAM’s request for trading information on related subjects, and that Giang Bui, the portfolio manager for PIMCO’s investment in Triaxx 2007-1, had more direct knowledge and would also testify as PIMCO’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative.
Order
The court granted the application only to the extent that it would hold a discovery conference on April 21, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20A. The TAM Parties’ opposition was due April 13, 2022, and PIMCO’s optional reply was due April 15, 2022. The order did not itself grant a protective order, prohibit the depositions, or resolve the parties’ underlying discovery dispute.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.