Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-02313
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Judge Parker partly granted and partly denied discovery requests, denied a deposition delay, and declined to extend fact discovery.
Andre Pauwels, Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, and Deloitte, which were affected by the court’s rulings on document production, deposition timing, and discovery deadlines.
What happened
In Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Andre Pauwels asked the court to require Bank of New York Mellon Corporation to provide more documents and to postpone his deposition.
Pauwels claims that the bank benefited from using a valuation model and spreadsheet he created while advising the bank on alternative-energy investments, including use on projects for which he was not a consultant. His remaining claim is for unjust enrichment.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the request to postpone the deposition and denied additional production for Requests for Production 2, 3, and 4. She granted in part the requests concerning dissemination and use of the model, Requests 5 and 8, found the request concerning the end of the consultancy, Request 7, moot, and declined to extend fact discovery at that time.
The detailed version
- Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-02313
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 23, 2024
Background
Andre Pauwels worked for Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BNYM) as an independent advisor. In 2014, he developed a valuation tool consisting of formulas and equations in an Excel spreadsheet while advising on an alternative-energy investment. He later provided the spreadsheet to people within BNYM for projects on which he was engaged. Pauwels said he asked that the model and spreadsheet be kept confidential and that BNYM agreed.
Pauwels later learned that Deloitte had received a copy of the model and was using it in work for BNYM. After earlier motion practice, the only remaining claim was Pauwels’s claim for unjust enrichment. He contends that BNYM was paid for his consulting work but did not pay him separately for using the model and spreadsheet on other projects, including projects involving Deloitte.
Discovery motion
Pauwels moved to compel BNYM to provide additional documents responding to Requests for Production (RFPs) 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. He also requested an extension of all fact-discovery deadlines and a postponement of his deposition, which was scheduled for April 26, 2024.
The court denied the request to postpone the deposition. It found that the additional documents requested were not necessary for Pauwels to prepare for the deposition, which was to proceed as scheduled.
The court explained that broad requests for “all” documents generally are overbroad and that the remaining unjust-enrichment claim focused on whether BNYM or Deloitte benefited from using the model. It therefore found documents about Pauwels’s paid consulting work generally irrelevant and denied the motion as to RFP 2. It also denied the motion as to RFP 3 because the request for all documents concerning the models was extraordinarily broad and was not properly tailored to identify other projects that used the model. The court denied the motion as to RFP 4 because confidentiality was not relevant to the remaining claim and BNYM represented that it had searched for and produced documents it could locate concerning Pauwels’s alleged confidentiality request.
Ruling
The court granted in part the motion concerning RFPs 5 and 8. Although those requests were overbroad as written, BNYM and Deloitte were required to produce, to the extent such documents existed, documents reflecting projects other than those on which Pauwels personally worked as a consultant that used his model or spreadsheet. The documents were to show the general nature of each project and help Pauwels determine how many times BNYM and Deloitte used the model without creating an independent analytical tool.
The court found the motion concerning RFP 7 moot because BNYM stated that it was conducting a reasonable search for documents concerning the end of its relationship with Pauwels. BNYM was ordered to produce the required documents within 21 days. Judge Katharine H. Parker did not grant an extension of the fact-discovery deadline at that time.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.