Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al

Filing 644

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, because Defendants Barclays plc, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG have provided or have agreed to provide Plaintiffs with verified versions of their interrogatory responses, Plain tiffs objection to the subject interrogatory responses of Barclays plc, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG, on the ground that they were not verified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, is overruled as moot. As further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 09/09/2020) (jcs)

Case 1:15-cv-09300-LGS Document 644 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
:
JOHN NYPL, et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-against:
:
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.,
:
Defendants. :
------------------------------------------------------------- X
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

15 Civ. 9300 (LGS)
ORDER

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s Orders at Dkt. Nos. 574 and 622, on August 21,
2020, the parties filed a joint status letter (Dkt. No. 623), (1) to apprise the Court of the status of
certain interrogatory responses, any supplemental responses and any related disputes; (2) to
inform the Court of whether Plaintiffs intend to seek depositions based upon the interrogatory
responses, the proposed dates for any such depositions and any related disputes; and (3) to
propose appropriate amendments to Sections II and IV of the Third Amended Civil Case
Management Plan and Scheduling Order;
WHEREAS, within the August 21, 2020, joint status letter (Dkt. No. 623), the parties
addressed their respective positions regarding issues including but not limited to, the following:
•

whether the interrogatory responses of Defendants’ Barclays plc, Citicorp,
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG were
insufficient because they lacked a verification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33;

•

whether it was proper for Plaintiffs to serve interrogatories on non-party HSBC
Holdings plc;

•

whether Defendants Barclays plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of
Scotland plc, Citibank and UBS AG, are required, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Case 1:15-cv-09300-LGS Document 644 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 3

Civil Procedure 26, to produce a privilege log in support of their interrogatory
responses; and
•

whether the Court should permit Plaintiff to serve additional document requests
seeking certain categories of documents outlined in the August 21, 2020, joint
status letter;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the parties’ Fourth Amended Civil Case Management Plan and
Scheduling Order, (Dkt. No. 615), the deadline for the completion of fact discovery was July 20,
2020; it is hereby
ORDERED that, because Defendants Barclays plc, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG have provided or have agreed to provide Plaintiffs with
verified versions of their interrogatory responses, Plaintiffs objection to the subject interrogatory
responses of Barclays plc, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland plc and
UBS AG, on the ground that they were not verified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33, is overruled as moot. It is further
ORDERED that, for substantially the reasons stated in Defendants’ portion of the August
21, 2020, joint status letter (Dkt. No. 23), including that the Court’s Order at Dkt. No. 572
granted permission to serve interrogatories on the HSBC Defendants -- HSBC North America
Holdings, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. -- but did not grant permission to serve interrogatories
on non-party HSBC Holdings plc, it was not proper for Plaintiffs to serve interrogatories on
HSBC Holdings plc, and HSBC Holdings plc is not required to supplement any responses it has
provided already to Plaintiffs. It is further
ORDERED that, because Defendants Barclays plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank
of Scotland plc, Citibank and UBS AG do not have an obligation, under Federal Rule of Civil
2

Case 1:15-cv-09300-LGS Document 644 Filed 09/09/20 Page 3 of 3

Procedure Rule 26, to produce a privilege log in support of interrogatory responses but do have
an obligation to provide facts sufficient to support any privilege objections to the interrogatories,
Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with a letter identifying (1) any privilege objections they
believe are not sufficiently supported and (2) the information need to sufficiently support any
identified objections, and the parties shall meet and confer to discuss each identified objection
and to attempt to resolve any outstanding issues. It is further
ORDERED that, Plaintiffs’ requests for permission to serve additional document requests
is DENIED for substantially the reasons outlined in Defendants’ portion of the August 21, 2020,
joint status letter (Dkt. No. 623), including, that the requests are untimely, and the deadline for
the completion of all fact discovery was July 20, 2020, (Dkt. No. 615). It is further
ORDERED that, the issues of Plaintiffs’ request to take certain depositions and the
timing of Plaintiffs’ production of their final amended expert report in support of class
certification will be discussed at tomorrow’s conference.

Dated: September 9, 2020
New York, New York

3