U.S. Bank, National Association v. The Charitable Donor Advised Fund, L.P.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-11059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In U.S. Bank v. The Charitable Donor Advised Fund, Judge Woods denied discovery requests because related counterclaims were dismissed and reopening discovery was disproportionate.
The DAF Parties’ ability to obtain additional discovery from U.S. Bank, Joshua N. Terry, and Acis Capital Management was affected; the motion to compel was denied.
What happened
In U.S. Bank, National Association v. The Charitable Donor Advised Fund, L.P., the DAF Parties asked to obtain additional written discovery from U.S. Bank, Joshua Terry, and Acis Capital Management. The request followed an agreement allowing further discovery about new matters, allegations, or claims in amended pleadings.
The DAF Parties sought discovery related to counterclaims and amended defenses in their Second Amended Answer and First Amended Counterclaim. The court had separately dismissed the counterclaims, and most of the defenses were unchanged from the earlier answer.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the motion to compel. He ruled that discovery concerning the dismissed counterclaims was no longer relevant, and that any other requested discovery would be disproportionate because it would require reopening fact discovery. The court also canceled a previously scheduled conference.
The detailed version
- U.S. Bank, National Association v. The Charitable Donor Advised Fund, L.P. · No. 1:21-cv-11059
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
The Charitable Donor Advised Fund and CLO HoldCo, referred to together as the DAF Parties, moved to compel discovery from U.S. Bank, Joshua N. Terry, and Acis Capital Management, referred to together as the Plaintiffs. The motion arose from the parties’ July 10, 2023 agreement allowing further written discovery about new matters, allegations, or claims raised in amended pleadings served after April 14, 2023.
The DAF Parties had filed a Second Amended Answer and First Amended Counterclaim. That filing replaced their earlier answer and counterclaim. The court later issued an opinion dismissing the counterclaims. The Second Answer repeated most of the earlier affirmative defenses, with changes to the Eighth and Thirteenth defenses. The Eighth Defense added theories including breach of contract, tortious interference, bad faith, and violation of public policy. The Thirteenth Defense incorporated facts alleged in the counterclaim in support of the denials and defenses.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) requires courts to limit discovery that is cumulative, obtainable from a less burdensome source, sought after a party has had sufficient opportunity to obtain it, or outside the permitted scope.
Ruling
The court denied the motion to compel discovery. It denied as moot any request concerning the dismissed counterclaims. The court also held that the DAF Parties were not entitled to discovery concerning the newly raised defenses because the counterclaims had been dismissed, including allegations of breach of contract, tortious interference, and bad faith.
The court further ruled that, even if the defenses were meaningfully different from the dismissed counterclaims, the requested discovery was disproportionate under Rule 26(b). Allowing it would require reopening fact discovery, and the burden or expense would outweigh the likely benefit. The court canceled the conference scheduled for February 2, 2024 and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket No. 206.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.