La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:19-cv-03800
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In La Belle v. Barclays Capital, Judge Gorenstein narrowed discovery and ordered further talks about regulator communications concerning La Belle’s 2018 complaints.
Brian La Belle and Barclays Capital Inc.; the order governs their efforts to obtain and produce a narrow category of communications involving investigators and La Belle’s 2018 complaints.
What happened
La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc. concerns discovery about whether La Belle complained in 2018 that Barclays failed to capture securities transactions on personal devices, and whether Barclays terminated him because of that complaint.
The court found little relevance in La Belle’s broad requests for documents about regulatory violations, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s views, and the significance of his complaints. It explained that the relevant evidence was the contemporaneous record of what he said and how Barclays responded.
Judge Gorenstein directed the parties to confer about a narrower category of documents: communications from Barclays to investigators that specifically referred to La Belle’s 2018 complaints and Barclays’ response. If they could not agree, Barclays had to address the burden of producing those documents, and La Belle could respond.
The detailed version
- La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03800
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Sept. 1, 2022
Background
The order addressed a discovery dispute identified by docket numbers 275, 278, 280, 284, and 285. The opinion describes the case as involving two narrow issues concerning personal devices: whether La Belle complained to Barclays in 2018 about Barclays’ failure to capture securities transactions on personal devices, and whether Barclays terminated La Belle because of that complaint.
Discovery Ruling
The court found little relevance in La Belle’s broad document request. It rejected the argument that any punishment Barclays received for violating rules in this area would make it more or less likely that La Belle made the complaint or that Barclays terminated him because of it. The court also stated that what the Securities and Exchange Commission thought about any complaint by La Belle was not relevant to the issues in the case. It further stated that La Belle was not entitled to discovery about “the significance” of his complaints.
The court noted that the contemporaneous record of La Belle’s complaints was what mattered. It also explained that communications from Barclays to regulators during an investigation might be useful if they specifically referred to La Belle’s 2018 complaints about improper use of personal devices. Such communications might show whether Barclays knew about the complaint and might describe actions Barclays took in response.
Further Proceedings
The court directed the parties to confer again about that narrower category of communications. It emphasized that proportionality—the requirement that discovery be reasonable in relation to the needs of the case—had to be considered. Because the record did not show the burden Barclays would face in obtaining the documents, the court ordered that, if the parties reached an impasse, Barclays must file a letter addressing that burden within seven days after La Belle notified Barclays of the impasse. La Belle could respond within seven days, and each letter was limited to three pages.
The excerpt does not state a formal grant or denial of a motion; it narrows the discovery issue and directs further discussions and possible letter submissions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.