Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-04141
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Alix v. McKinsey, Judge Furman denied defendants’ request to compel discovery about an assignment and litigation communications.
The order affected defendants, who were denied additional compelled discovery, and Jay Alix and AlixPartners, LLP, who were not required by this application to produce the disputed documents beyond the production described in the order.
What happened
In Jay Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc., defendants asked the court to require Jay Alix and AlixPartners, LLP to produce documents for an expected motion challenging the validity of an assignment of claims and Alix’s role in the case. The requests covered documents about AlixPartners’ competitive strategy, communications about the lawsuit, and communications about the assignment.
Alix and AlixPartners agreed to produce some litigation and assignment communications from May 1, 2017, through July 11, 2022, but refused other requested documents and later communications. Defendants argued that the documents could show Alix was acting for AlixPartners and that the assignment was insufficient.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the application and directed the Clerk to terminate the related docket entry. The court said some requests were moot; it found the remaining competitive-strategy documents likely irrelevant or disproportionate, and later litigation communications had little or no added value in evaluating the assignment’s validity.
The detailed version
- Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04141
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 31, 2024
Background
Defendants submitted an application seeking an order compelling Jay Alix and AlixPartners, LLP to produce three categories of documents for defendants’ anticipated motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. Rule 17 includes a requirement that an action be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest—the person or entity legally entitled to enforce the claim. Defendants expected to argue that an assignment of claims to Alix was invalid and that Alix was acting in a representative capacity for AlixPartners.
The court had previously granted expedited discovery related to the Rule 17 issues and required that document discovery be completed by January 30, 2024. Defendants sought: (1) documents concerning AlixPartners’ strategy for responding to McKinsey’s perceived competitive threat; (2) communications between Alix and AlixPartners about the litigation and the claims, along with related AlixPartners board materials; and (3) communications concerning the assignment of claims to Alix.
Parties’ Positions
Defendants argued that the competitive-strategy documents could show that Alix and AlixPartners had sought to harm McKinsey publicly and push it out of restructuring work. They also argued that communications about the lawsuit and the assignment could show that Alix was acting for AlixPartners rather than pursuing the case only in his individual capacity. Defendants specifically sought some communications after May 9, 2018, when Alix filed the action, and assignment communications from January 19, 2022, through July 11, 2022.
Alix and AlixPartners declined to produce the competitive-response documents unless they expressly referenced the assignment. They agreed to expand the production period for litigation and assignment communications through May 9, 2018, but did not agree to produce documents after that date. The court’s order states that Alix had agreed to produce claim-discussion and assignment communications from May 1, 2017, through July 11, 2022.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the application, substantially for the reasons stated in Alix’s and AlixPartners’ responses. The court stated that some of defendants’ requests were moot. For the requests that were not moot, the court agreed that they were improper.
The court found that competitive-response documents not produced as part of the agreed production were likely irrelevant. It also held that, to the extent those documents were relevant, the request was not proportional to the needs of the case. The court reached the same conclusion about claim-discussion documents dating after July 11, 2022, finding that those documents had limited or no additional value in proving or disproving the assignment’s validity.
The court therefore denied defendants’ request for relief and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 292. This order resolved the discovery application; the provided text does not decide the anticipated Rule 17 motion itself.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.