Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation

Background

After a June 9 telephone conference about discovery disputes, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron ruled on the parties’ submissions and arguments. The order addressed deposition topics under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which permits an organization to designate one or more people to testify about topics identified in a deposition notice.

Rulings on Discovery

The court quashed the plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 6 and 7, concerning the defendants’ efforts to preserve documents and data, and Topic 14, concerning the defendants’ policies and practices for retaining, storing, and verifying data. The court found these topics disproportionate to the needs of the case. If the plaintiffs identify gaps in a specific defendant’s document production, they must meet and confer with that defendant. If the gaps are not adequately explained and compromise efforts fail, the plaintiffs may seek permission to serve targeted written questions or take targeted Rule 30(b)(6) testimony. The court also stated that data-integrity issues should be addressed if they arise and that the plaintiffs may seek written discovery about when litigation holds were put in place.

The court quashed the plaintiffs’ Topic 30, concerning the defendants’ knowledge of the foreign-exchange market’s susceptibility to manipulation, because the subject was better suited to questioning witnesses with personal knowledge or to written questions asking about the parties’ contentions. The defendants could assert privilege objections.

The court quashed the plaintiffs’ Topic 32, concerning agreements, commitments, or understandings among the defendants relating to foreign-exchange trading, because it was disproportionate and could impose undue burdens in preparing witnesses to testify. The court also quashed Topic 42, concerning compliance with orders, settlements, pleas, immunity deals, and cooperation agreements relating to foreign-exchange trading, finding it disproportionate and noting that the requested testimony appeared inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.

The court quashed the plaintiffs’ Topics 43 and 45, concerning the defendants’ substantive communications with regulatory authorities. In reaching that decision, it considered related topics on which testimony would be given, discovery available from related litigation, and the burden of preparing witnesses.

The court separately quashed the defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) damages topic. It stated that the defendants could obtain discovery about the plaintiffs’ damages during expert discovery.

Other Orders and Disposition

The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the custodial production for Danelle Reimer. The court granted the parties’ joint letter motion to seal. It found that filing the unredacted version under seal was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information, while recognizing that public access to judicial documents is not absolute.

The court ordered the parties to file, no later than June 14, 2022, a joint letter proposing dates for the next discovery conference and the corresponding joint letter. The opinion is a discovery and sealing order; it does not decide the underlying merits of the case.