Ramchandani v. CitiBank National Association

Background

Rohan Ramchandani sued CitiBank National Association, CitiGroup Inc., and Citicorp over an alleged malicious-prosecution claim arising from Citi’s disclosure of information about him to the United States Department of Justice during an investigation into alleged foreign-exchange price fixing. The pending motion concerned discovery, not the merits of that claim.

Ramchandani asked the court to permit alternative service of a deposition subpoena on James Forese, permit the deposition of Mark Nelson, and extend the deadline for completing fact discovery. Forese is described as Citi’s former president. Nelson is described as a former partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, the firm whose Rule 30(b)(6) witness had already been deposed.

Forese Deposition

The court found good cause to extend discovery for the Forese deposition. Ramchandani had arranged for the subpoena to be delivered to Forese’s Connecticut address more than two weeks before the discovery deadline, after Citi’s counsel said they would not represent Forese. The court noted that this service may already have been valid because the subpoena was delivered to a person of suitable age and discretion at Forese’s residence and was also mailed there.

Rather than hold a hearing about whether the original service was proper, the court granted alternative service by certified mail to Forese at the Connecticut address. The court found that this method was consistent with due process because Forese already had notice of the subpoena. It extended the fact-discovery deadline until August 15, 2022, for the limited purpose of taking Forese’s two-hour remote deposition. Citi’s counsel was ordered to contact Forese by July 28, 2022, and arrange a deposition date before August 15. Ramchandani was required to serve the subpoena by certified mail, which the order stated would constitute good and sufficient service.

Nelson Deposition

The court denied the request to extend the discovery deadline for Nelson’s deposition. Ramchandani wanted to question Nelson about communications with the law firm that represented him in his criminal case. But, during the deposition of the Cleary Gottlieb Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Ramchandani did not ask about those communications even though the designee was prepared to answer questions about them.

The court had previously directed that the law firm’s designee provide information, including information from former employees, and had stated that further testimony from current or former attorneys would require a showing of good cause. The court concluded that Ramchandani knew, or reasonably should have known, that he needed to ask about Nelson’s communications during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and then show why further testimony was necessary. Because he did not do so, the court found that he had not acted diligently and denied the requested extension.

The court nevertheless stated that, if Citi submitted an affidavit or declaration from Nelson in support of its expected summary-judgment motion, Ramchandani would be permitted to take a remote deposition of Nelson about that filing, limited to two hours.

Disposition

Judge Stewart D. Aaron concluded that Ramchandani’s letter motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The order extended discovery only for the limited Forese deposition and authorized certified-mail service of the subpoena; it denied the requested extension for the Nelson deposition, subject to the later, limited possibility described in the order.