On Friday, the Supreme Court, as expected, granted certiorari in the challenge pending before Judge Furman over the addition of a citizenship question to the census.  The question presented concerns whether it is appropriate to order discovery outside the administrative record (such as the deposition Judge Furman had earlier ordered of Commerce Secretary Wilbur

In an opinion today, Judge Cote denied a motion to compel brought by the defendants in an SEC enforcement action relating to one of the SEC’s witnesses.  The defendants claimed that the witness gave inaccurate deposition testimony about having been disciplined at work for having harassed a former romantic partner, and so wanted more documents about the incident, and an additional deposition.  Judge Cote, who chose not to identify the witness by name, emphatically denied the motion:
Continue Reading

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Hellerstein authorized discovery from the law firm Cravath under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 relating to a claim that the petitioning party planned to file, but had not yet filed, in the Netherlands against a Cravath client.

Judge Hellerstein rejected Cravath’s argument that, since the Netherlands case hadn’t been filed, the discovery was not (in the words of the statute) “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal”:
Continue Reading

In a decision yesterday, Judge Crotty denied a motion by a former People magazine editor, who claims that she was fired based on her race and that People magazine was only interested “in printing [articles] concerning . . . ‘White middle-class suburbia,’” to compel discovery concerning what stories People chose to publish.  He found the requests were “burdensome and disproportionate”:
Continue Reading

In an opinion Monday, resolving “the latest in a long, tedious series of discovery disputes,” Judge Hellerstein chided a patent plaintiff, Intellectual Ventures, for having disclosed infringement contentions that were “discursive, disorganized, and, at times, confusing” and for repeatedly shifting positions about what it believed was the infringing conduct of the defendant, JP Morgan:

Intellectual

In an opinion yesterday, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein rejected the Bank of China’s attempt to withhold from discovery documents that the bank claimed were privileged because they relate to “Suspicious Activity Reports” (or SARs) that financial institutions must file with regulators to alert them of suspicious customer behavior. Federal regulations state that “any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR” is generally confidential.  The bank established a process for investigating suspicious conduct, and the culmination of the process is a committee vote as to whether or not to file a SAR.  According to the bank, “documents produced at each step of this process are protected by the SAR privilege since they result from the implementation of BOC’s policies and procedures for the filing of SARs.” Judge Gorenstein disagreed.
Continue Reading