Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-02313
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon, Judge Parker partly granted and partly denied defendants’ motion to compel interrogatory answers.
Andre Pauwels and The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and the Bank of New York Mellon; the order required Pauwels to provide some additional interrogatory answers while excusing other responses.
What happened
Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation involved defendants’ request that Andre Pauwels provide more complete answers to interrogatories seeking names of people with relevant knowledge and the factual basis for allegations. Unjust enrichment was the only claim remaining after Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the other claims.
Judge Parker ruled that requests for the identities of people with knowledge of relevant facts were proper, including requests identifying people mentioned in specific complaint paragraphs. But requests asking for the factual basis of allegations were too broad and improper at that stage under the court’s local discovery rule, so Pauwels did not have to answer those portions.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel. Pauwels had to provide the required names within one week, but no further answer was required to Interrogatory 4 because he had already identified a document containing the relevant employee’s identity. Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-02313
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 9, 2024
Background
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and the Bank of New York Mellon submitted a letter motion asking Andre Pauwels to supplement answers to certain interrogatories, identified as Interrogatory Nos. 3–7 and 9. The interrogatories generally sought the identities of people with knowledge relevant to the action, including people referenced in specific complaint allegations, and the factual basis for certain allegations.
The opinion states that unjust enrichment was the only surviving claim after Judge Ronnie Abrams previously dismissed all other claims. Pauwels objected that requests for the factual basis of allegations were overbroad and improper under Local Civil Rule 33.3 at that stage of discovery. He also argued that the requests duplicated Interrogatory 1, which sought the identities of everyone believed to have knowledge about the unjust-enrichment claim.
Ruling on the Motion to Compel
The court applied Local Civil Rule 33.3. At the beginning of discovery, the rule generally limits interrogatories to requests for the names of witnesses with information relevant to the action. Other interrogatories may be served during discovery only if they are a more practical way to obtain the information than document requests or depositions, or if the court orders them. Interrogatories seeking an opposing party’s claims and contentions generally may be served near the end of discovery.
The court held that requests seeking the identities of people with knowledge of relevant facts were proper under the rule. It also held that Pauwels had to identify people referenced in specifically identified complaint paragraphs. The court rejected Pauwels’s argument that his response to Interrogatory 1 automatically answered the other requests, explaining that the broader list did not provide the specific information defendants sought.
The court reached a different conclusion about requests for “the factual basis” of allegations. It held that those requests were overbroad and improper at that stage under Local Civil Rule 33.3. Pauwels therefore did not have to answer those portions of the interrogatories.
The court noted that Pauwels had already answered Interrogatory 4 by identifying a document containing the relevant employee’s identity, so no further response to that interrogatory was required. The court ordered Pauwels to provide the other required answers within one week.
Disposition and Effect
The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel. The order required additional responses identifying specified people, excused responses concerning the factual basis of allegations, and required no further response to Interrogatory 4. Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 128. This order addressed discovery and did not decide the merits of the remaining unjust-enrichment claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.