Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc.

Background

Defendant-counterclaim plaintiff Seth Goldstrom filed a letter-motion seeking an order compelling counterclaim defendant AlixPartners, LLP, to answer Interrogatory No. 3. An interrogatory is a written discovery question that a party must answer under oath. Goldstrom’s question asked AlixPartners to identify all people with knowledge of the alleged “pay-to-play” scheme described in paragraph 144 of the Second Amended Complaint, including alleged participants.

Goldstrom argued that the information was relevant to his defense against Jay Alix’s claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and to Goldstrom’s defamation counterclaim. He also argued that Alix and AlixPartners had improperly pointed to each other as the proper source of the information. Goldstrom said that Alix had identified unnamed AlixPartners directors, officers, or employees as people with relevant knowledge, while AlixPartners had refused to provide the names.

Opposing position

AlixPartners contended that the interrogatory was more properly answered by Alix. The court’s ruling states that Alix and AlixPartners agreed with that position. The ruling also states that Alix had properly provided the relevant information in response to an interrogatory served by other defendants, subject to supplementation if he later came into possession of additional responsive information.

Ruling

The court agreed with Alix and AlixPartners that the motion to compel should be denied because the interrogatory was more properly answered by Alix and Alix had already provided the relevant information. The letter-motion to compel was DENIED. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 348.

Classification

This is a procedural order concerning discovery. The court decided which party should answer a discovery question; it did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.