Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Williams, Jr.

Background

In an earlier order, the Court allowed limited jurisdictional discovery—information gathering about facts relevant to the court’s authority to hear the case—on the question of Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC’s standing. The permitted discovery included the defendants’ current business activities.

During a February 8, 2024 deposition, the defendants’ counsel objected when the plaintiff’s counsel asked about when individuals were hired for the defendants’ new business, Advo(k)ate. The objection was based on the argument that at least some hiring decisions were made before Advo(k)ate opened and therefore could not qualify as “current business activities.”

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan ordered that the plaintiff’s counsel may inquire about Advo(k)ate’s hiring decisions and the timelines for those decisions, including hiring decisions made before the business officially opened. The Court stated that those decisions may be relevant to current business activities because they concern Advo(k)ate’s personnel and the services it offers.

The order relied on the principle that a plaintiff should have ample opportunity to obtain and present evidence relevant to whether jurisdiction exists. It addressed the scope of discovery only; it did not decide the plaintiff’s standing or the Court’s ultimate jurisdiction.