Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Williams, Jr.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-08920
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marsh & McLennan v. Williams, Judge Cronan denied defendants’ motion without prejudice and ordered limited discovery on standing.
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC and the defendants are affected: the court ordered limited discovery about standing, denied the pending motion without prejudice, and allowed defendants to refile it after discovery.
What happened
Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Williams, Jr. involves defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, or alternatively to require arbitration or pause the case while another proceeding continued. The motion included evidence about information and clients defendants allegedly took from the plaintiff and defendants’ current business activities.
The court said it needed more information to decide whether the plaintiff had suffered an injury allowing it to bring the case. It authorized limited discovery about information defendants may have taken or kept, clients or potential clients they may have taken or solicited, and defendants’ current business activities. The parties also had to file a status letter about discovery.
Judge John P. Cronan denied the pending motion without prejudice and directed the clerk to close it. Defendants may file the motion again after the limited discovery ends, and the court will set a new briefing schedule.
The detailed version
- Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Williams, Jr. · No. 1:22-cv-08920
- John Cronan
- July 13, 2023
Background
On January 20, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a legally sufficient injury allowing it to bring the case in federal court. Defendants alternatively moved to compel arbitration or stay the case while another proceeding was pending. They submitted evidence concerning information and clients they allegedly took from the plaintiff and their current business activities.
Jurisdictional Discovery
The court addressed standing first because a finding that the plaintiff lacked standing would eliminate the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court determined that jurisdictional discovery—limited information gathering about whether federal jurisdiction exists—was necessary because relevant evidence might be solely in defendants’ possession.
The parties could conduct limited discovery by October 13, 2023, concerning:
- The contents of information belonging to the plaintiff that defendants may have taken or retained after their employment with the plaintiff or one of its subsidiaries ended;
- The identities of the plaintiff’s clients or potential clients that defendants may have taken or solicited after that employment ended; and
- Defendants’ current business activities.
The plaintiff could request expanding those discovery subjects if it believed additional information was relevant to opposing the motion to dismiss. The parties were required to file a status letter by September 13, 2023.
Ruling
Because the discovery would likely significantly change the parties’ briefing on standing, Judge John P. Cronan denied the pending motion without prejudice. The opinion states that defendants may refile the motion after jurisdictional discovery ends. The court also directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 28. The court did not decide whether the plaintiff had standing, whether arbitration was required, whether the case should be stayed, or the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.