Trusz v. USB Rlty Investors LLC et al

Filing 406

RULING RE PENDING DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS 185 209 253 262 . See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/14/2015.(Norman, D.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RICHARD TRUSZ,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:09-cv-00268 (JAM)

v.
UBS RLTY INVESTOR LLC and UBS AG,
Defendants.

RULING RE PENDING DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff has lodged objections to several of Magistrate Judge Margolis’s discovery
rulings in this case. These rulings may be set aside only upon a showing of clear and material
factual error, an abuse of discretion, or a misinterpretation of the law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);
Hudson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 186 F.R.D. 271, 273 (D. Conn. 1999) (“[M]agistrate judges are
considered to have broad discretion over discovery matters, and a party seeking to overturn a
magistrate judge’s discovery ruling bears a heavy burden.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). I
conclude that plaintiff’s objections are plainly without merit in light of the applicable standard of
review and therefore overrule these objections.
Objection to Ruling re Depositions of High-Level Employees
Plaintiff objects (Doc. #185) to Judge Margolis’s ruling (Doc. #179) regarding the
depositions of certain Europe-based, high-level UBS employees (John Fraser, Paul Marcuse, and
Mario Cueni). Judge Margolis conducted a careful review of the facts and properly relied on case
authority that sensibly restricts a litigant’s ability to subject high-level organizational officials to
deposition in the absence of a showing that they had unique personal knowledge. See, e.g.,
Rodriguez v. SLM Corp., 2010 WL 1286989, at *2 (D. Conn. 2010). Plaintiff cites no case law to
1

support his contention (Doc. #185 at 3) that use of the “unique personal knowledge” test in the
high-level-corporate-official context is contrary to law. His remaining fact arguments and efforts
to distinguish other cases fall well short of establishing clear error or an abuse of discretion in the
application of law to the facts here. Plaintiff’s contention (Doc. #185 at 19–20) that Judge
Margolis anticipatorily ruled on the scope of the attorney-client privilege before the upcoming
deposition of Mario Cueni is a clear distortion of Judge Margolis’s ruling. For the reasons
otherwise set forth in defendants’ response (Doc. #191), plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
Plaintiff further objects (Doc. #253) to Judge Margolis’s ruling (Doc. #233) granting
defendants’ motion for a protective order on grounds of attorney-client privilege with respect to
certain questions asked at the deposition of Mario Cueni. I conclude that Judge Margolis did not
misunderstand the scope of the attorney-client privilege or abuse her discretion in concluding
that Mario Cueni’s communications after April 28, 2008, were properly subject to the claim of
privilege.
Objections to Ruling re Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel
Plaintiff objects (Doc. #209) to Judge Margolis’s ruling (Doc. #203) regarding certain
document requests that were the subject of plaintiff’s third motion to compel. With respect to
Request No. 184 (whistleblower reports), the objection is overruled based on the representation
of defendants that whistleblower reports referring or relating to plaintiff have been produced.
Plaintiff has not established the relevance of other whistleblower reports regarding retaliation
complaints by employees of other UBS-related subsidiaries/divisions besides UBS Realty. With
respect to Requests Nos. 163–65 (communications among European executives about UBS
Realty), plaintiff has not persuasively rebutted the several reasons—including lack of probable
relevance, burdensomeness, and European data restrictions—relied on by defendants and Judge

2

Margolis. There was no abuse of discretion. With respect to Requests Nos. 145–47, 157–59, and
160–62 (communications between European executives and UBS Realty), plaintiff has not
shown that all the subject communications are necessarily relevant, and therefore it was not an
abuse of discretion for Judge Margolis to decline to require that all the communications be
produced or subject to a relevance inspection review by plaintiff’s counsel. With respect to
Requests Nos. 178-79 (UBS policies that apply to UBS Realty), plaintiff has not shown the
probable and non-cumulative relevance of additional policies beyond those already produced or
that it would not be unduly burdensome for defendants to identify and produce all additional
policies.
Objection to Ruling re In Camera Review of 383 Documents
Plaintiff objects (Doc. #262) to Judge Margolis’s determination after in camera review of
383 documents that “all of them unquestionably are protected under either the attorney-client
privilege or the work product doctrine.” Doc. #254 at 3. Plaintiff has not shown any legal error or
abuse of discretion in Judge Margolis’s interpretation and application of these privileges. To
begin with, plaintiff has not shown that Judge Margolis was even required to conduct an in
camera, document-by-document privilege review. Cf. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 568–
69 (1989). In any event, having chosen to do so, Judge Margolis was not required to issue a
document-by-document opinion explaining the grounds for privilege. Plaintiff has not shown that
the inclusion within certain communications of non-privileged document attachments dispels
application of the privilege to the remainder of the communications or otherwise warranted these
attachments’ disclosure in view that the attachments were communications to or from plaintiff or
his counsel and already in plaintiff’s possession. Nor has plaintiff shown a substantial need that

3

would overcome work product privilege protection, much less that Judge Margolis abused her
discretion in concluding that the work-product privilege applied.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. #185, #209, #253, and #262) to Judge Margolis’s discovery
rulings are overruled. If there remain objections to other discovery rulings by Judge Margolis
that were timely asserted and that plaintiff still wishes the Court to resolve, plaintiff shall
promptly advise the Court.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport this 14th day of January 2015.

/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

4