City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc. et al

Filing 397

ORDER terminating 388 Motion for Discovery; granting 390 Motion to Compel. Accordingly, the Court will sign a copy of the stipulation with Plaintiffs' preferred language at pages 17-18. See ECF Nos. 384-7, 386-1. No later than Februar y 7, 2020, one or both sides shall submit a clean copy of the stipulation consistent with the foregoing, in PDF format (on ECF) and in Microsoft Word format by e-mail to the Chambers e-mail address, to be signed and docketed by the Court. There are two other discovery disputes pending in this matter. First, by letter dated January 23, 2020, Plaintiffs sought to compel production from NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and NASDAQ BX, Inc. of certain documents and information (collectively, the "Br ogaard Data"). See ECF No. 390. The Court expresses no view on whether Plaintiffs' request would have been timely absent their September 6, 2019 document requests. But in light of the earlier requests, and substantially for the other reas ons set forth in Plaintiffs' letter, Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of the Brogaard Data is GRANTED. As further set forth herein. Finally, Defendants are reminded that, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, all letters (indeed, all filings) should be filed in a text-searchable format. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 388 and 390. As further set forth herein. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/6/2020) (ks)

Case 1:14-cv-02811-JMF Document 397 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BATS GLOBAL MARKETS et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

14-CV-2811 (JMF)
ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
The Court received the attached letter from Brett W. Redfearn, Director of the SEC’s
Division of Trading and Markets, in response to its letter of January 29, 2020. See ECF No. 396.
In light of Mr. Redfearn’s letter, the Court concludes that the language proposed by Defendants
for the ESI stipulation is unnecessary and inadvisable. Accordingly, the Court will sign a copy
of the stipulation with Plaintiffs’ preferred language at pages 17-18. See ECF Nos. 384-7, 386-1.
No later than February 7, 2020, one or both sides shall submit a clean copy of the stipulation
consistent with the foregoing, in PDF format (on ECF) and in Microsoft Word format by e-mail
to the Chambers e-mail address, to be signed and docketed by the Court.
There are two other discovery disputes pending in this matter. First, by letter dated
January 23, 2020, Plaintiffs sought to compel production from NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and
NASDAQ BX, Inc. of certain documents and information (collectively, the “Brogaard Data”).
See ECF No. 390. The Court expresses no view on whether Plaintiffs’ request would have been
timely absent their September 6, 2019 document requests. But in light of the earlier requests,
and substantially for the other reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’ letter, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel

Case 1:14-cv-02811-JMF Document 397 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 5

production of the Brogaard Data is GRANTED.
Second, by letter dated January 21, 2020, Plaintiffs sought a conference regarding the
timing and scope of certain Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. See ECF No. 388. To the extent that
Defendants take the categorical position that 30(b)(6) depositions cannot be conducted until
Defendants produce all requested documents and data to Plaintiffs, the Court disagrees. See,
e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3)(A) (“Unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise for
the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice . . . methods of discovery
may be used in any sequence . . . .”). That said, the Court agrees with Defendants that
depositions on some of the noticed topics — namely, those that depend on particular documents
and data — should be deferred until after the relevant documents and data are produced. In the
Court’s view, however, some of the noticed topics are more general in nature and could proceed
even before document and data production. In light of the foregoing guidance and the fact that
the Court has now resolved the parties’ ESI protocol dispute, the parties should confer further in
an effort to reach agreement on which depositions can proceed now (and when) — mindful that,
absent good cause, Plaintiffs would not be allowed to re-depose any 30(b)(6) witness later in the
litigation. In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement, either side may seek appropriate
relief by letter motion in accordance with the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices.
Finally, Defendants are reminded that, pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules and
Practices, all letters (indeed, all filings) should be filed in a text-searchable format.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 388 and 390.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2020
New York, New York

__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

2

Case 1:14-cv-02811-JMF Document 397 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:14-cv-02811-JMF Document 397 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:14-cv-02811-JMF Document 397 Filed 02/06/20 Page 5 of 5