AMERITAS LIFE INSURANCE CORP. v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A.
Filing
210
OPINION and ORDER granting 198 Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory. The language in the Request has been slightly modified by the Court to remove certain language that is either (i) unnecessary to the Request; or (ii) improperly characterizes an allegation as fact. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stacey D. Adams on 1/27/2025. (dam)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
AMERITAS LIFE INSURANCE
CORP.,
Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-18713 (MEF)
(SDA)
OPINION
Plaintiff,
January 27, 2025
v.
WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A, as
Securities Intermediary,
Defendants.
Presently before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Ameritas Life Insurance Corp.
(“Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel, Pierson Ferdinand, LLP, for Issuance of Letter of Request
Pursuant to Hague Evidence Conventions (the “Request”). (ECF No. 198). Plaintiff filed its
Request pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28(b)(2) and the Convention on the Taking
of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Evidence Convention”), Oct. 7,
1972, 23 U.S.T. 2555 (1970), 847 U.N.T.S. 231, reproduced in 28 U.S.C. §§1781 et seq.
Defendant Wilmington Trust, N.A., as Securities Intermediary (“Defendant”) does not oppose the
Request.
(ECF No. 199).
However, it nevertheless filed a response “to correct certain
mischaracterizations contained in the Request.” (Id.).
In particular, Defendant disagrees with Plaintiff’s characterization of the discovery
produced in the action to date. (Id.). Plaintiff’s Request seeks international judicial assistance to
request documents in the possession of Leadenhall Capital Partners (“Leadenhall”) and two former
employees of Leadenhall, Dan Knipe and Simon Mason, all of whom are located in London,
England. (ECF No. 198-3 at 1). The Request represents that the documents and testimony sought
from Leadenhall, Knipe, and Mason “cannot be secured except by the intervention of the United
Kingdom Court.” (Id. at 2). Defendant contends that the characterization imparts the impression
that documents in Leadenhall’s possession have not been produced in discovery to date and raises
issue with the Request’s failure to disclose that Geronta Funding Trust (“Geronta”), the entity for
which Securities Intermediary holds the policy at issue and which statutory trust is managed by
Leadenhall, already produced the precise documents being sought in the Request. (ECF No. 199
at 2).
While Defendant’s position is noted by the Court, it not a basis for denying the Request.
First, the information sought is clearly within the scope of permissible discovery and relevant to
the case. Second, despite what Defendant alleges, Plaintiff has not been able to obtain this
information from another source. (ECF No. 200). Defendant claims that it already produced the
documents but simultaneously denies its control of the documents. Indeed, in Defendant’s letter to
Special Master Mark Falk on April 22, 2024, it claimed that it cannot search or produce the
documents “in the possession, custody, and control of third parties [Geronta] and/or [Leadenhall]”
(Id., Exh. A). Defendant steadfastly maintained that it had no control of documents in the
possession of Leadenhall or Gironta. (Id.). Defendant suggested that Plaintiff should seek the
documents directly from Leadenhall or Gironta. (Id.).
Further, while Defendant ultimately provided some documentation from Geronta in
October 2024, Plaintiff contends the production was deficient for multiple reasons. (Id., Exh. B).
Plaintiff also points out that Defendant repeatedly failed to provide the certification or declaration
regarding the search scope and reasonableness of the search conducted. (ECF No. 200-2). Plaintiff
should not be required to rely on Defendant’s word (particularly in such a contentious case) that it
did a fulsome search on behalf of itself, Leadenhall and Geronta and produced all relevant
documents. Plaintiff has the right to obtain documents and information directly from the source,
particularly when Defendant has repeatedly maintained it does not control Leadenhall or Geronta.
Finally, Leadenhall may have documents in its possession that Geronta does not.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
That Plaintiff’s Request (ECF No. 198) to approve requests for international judicial
assistance, pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention of 18 March 1970 on the taking of
evidence in civil or commercial matters, to take evidence from Leadenhall, Knipe, and Mason is
GRANTED. The language in the Request has been slightly modified by the Court to remove
certain language that is either (i) unnecessary to the Request; or (ii) improperly characterizes an
allegation as fact. The clerk is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 198.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2025
s/ Stacey D. Adams
Hon. Stacey D. Adams
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?