Coventry Capital US LLC v. EEA Life Settlements, Inc. et al

Filing 274

DECISION AND ORDER: Because the Discovery Order's ruling on Defendants' motion to compel supplemental responses is not "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law," this aspect of Defendants' Objection is also overruled. For the reasons stated above, defendant Coventry Capital US LLC's objection (Dkt. No. 263) is hereby OVERRULED. For the reasons stated above, defendant Coventry Capital US LLC's objection (Dkt. No. 263) is hereby OVERRULED. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 3/15/2021) (js)

Case 1:17-cv-07417-VM-SLC Document 274 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
3/15/2021
COVENTRY CAPITAL US LLC,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
17 Civ. 7417 (VM)
- against :
:
EEA LIFE SETTLEMENTS, INC., HIREN :
DECISION AND ORDER
PATEL, and VINCENT PISCAER,
:
:
Defendants.
:
-----------------------------------X
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
On September 28, 2017, Plaintiff Coventry Capital US LLC
(“Coventry”)

commenced

this

suit

against

EEA

Life

Settlements, Inc. (“EEA”), Hiren Patel, and Vincent Piscaer
(collectively, “Defendants”), bringing claims of breach of
contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation, and aiding and
abetting

fraud/intentional

“Complaint,”

Dkt.

No.

1.)

misrepresentation.
The

matter

was

(See

referred

to

Magistrate Judge Pittman to oversee general pretrial issues,
including

scheduling,

discovery,

nondispositive

pretrial

motions, and settlement, and the referral was subsequently
transferred to Magistrate Judge Cave. (See Dkt. No. 25; Dkt.
Entry October 3, 2019.)
Now

before

the

Court

is

Coventry’s

objection

(“Objection,” Dkt. No. 263) to two rulings in Magistrate Judge
Cave’s December 16, 2020 discovery order (“Discovery Order,”

1

Case 1:17-cv-07417-VM-SLC Document 274 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 8

Dkt. No. 262). For the reasons discussed below, Coventry’s
Objection is OVERRULED in its entirety.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Matters concerning discovery generally are considered
‘nondispositive’ of the litigation.” Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v.
Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990); accord David
v. Weinstein Co. LLC, No. 18 Civ. 5414, 2020 WL 4042773, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2020). A magistrate judge’s order
granting or denying a nondispositive motion may be overturned
only if it “is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a).
“An

order

is

‘clearly

erroneous’

when

the

entire

evidence leaves the district court ‘with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Nike,
Inc. v. Wu, 349 F. Supp. 3d 346, 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting
FDIC v. Providence Coll., 115 F.3d 136, 140 (2d Cir. 1997)).
And “[a]n order is ‘contrary to law’ when it fails to apply
or

misapplies

relevant

statutes,

case

law

or

rules

of

procedure.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
“[M]agistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in
resolving nondispositive disputes and reversal is appropriate
only if their discretion is abused.” Winfield v. City of New
York, No. 15 Civ. 5236, 2017 WL 5054727, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
2, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2

Case 1:17-cv-07417-VM-SLC Document 274 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 8

“Thus, the party seeking to overturn a magistrate judge’s
decision carries a heavy burden.” Weinstein, 2020 WL 4042773,
at *3 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
II.

DISCUSSION

The Objection challenges two aspects of the Discovery
Order. First, Coventry objects to the denial of its motion to
compel the production of documents from six individuals.
Second, Coventry objects to the denial of its motion to compel
responses

to

interrogatories

concerning

EEA’s

asset

transfers.
A.

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION FROM CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS
In proceeding to Phase II of discovery, Coventry moved

for discovery from seven additional custodians who had been
identified on EEA’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)
26(a)(1) initial disclosures. Judge Cave granted the request
to include one individual -- Barry John -- as a Phase II
custodian, explaining that Coventry had met its burden of
showing that a search of his documents would provide unique,
relevant, and noncumulative evidence. (See Discovery Order at
13.) With respect to the remaining six individuals, however,
Judge Cave denied the request, explaining that “the remaining
Phase II custodians either played a less active role, or, in
the case of Mr. Harrop, as General Counsel, were copied on
emails that appear to have largely been captured and produced
3

Case 1:17-cv-07417-VM-SLC Document 274 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 8

in the Phase I productions,” rendering it “disproportionate
to permit the remaining Phase II Custodians in light of the
discovery already produced by the Phase I custodians.” (Id.
(citing Assured Guar. Mun. Corp. v. UBS Real Estate Sec. Inc.,
No. 12 Civ. 1579, 2013 WL 1195545, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25,
2013)).)
This ruling is neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary
to law.” The Court is unpersuaded by Coventry’s argument that
when an individual is identified on a party’s Rule 26(a)(1)
disclosures, the opposing party must always be permitted to
obtain documents from that person. To the contrary, “[a]ll
discovery, even if otherwise permitted by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure because it is likely to yield relevant
evidence, is subject to the court’s obligation to balance its
utility against its cost.” U.S. ex rel. McBride v. Halliburton
Co., 272 F.R.D. 235, 240 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(2)(C)); see also EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,
695 F.3d 201, 207 (2d Cir. 2012) (“A district court has broad
latitude to determine the scope of discovery and to manage
the discovery process.”); Blackrock Allocation Target Shares:
Series S Portfolio v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 14 Civ. 9372,
2018 WL 2215510, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2018) (noting that
courts have “significant flexibility and discretion to assess
the circumstances of the case and limit discovery accordingly
4

Case 1:17-cv-07417-VM-SLC Document 274 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 8

to

ensure

reasonably

that

the

scope

proportional

and

duration

of

to

the

value

of

case

and

information,

the

needs

of

the

resources”).

The

Court

is

satisfied

discovery
the

that

is

requested

the

parties’

Judge

Cave’s

balancing of these issues was supported by a careful analysis
of

the

existing

discovery,

the

value

of

the

requested

discovery, and the costs of production.1
Nor does the Court find that that Judge Cave applied an
“impossible to sustain” standard. (Objection at 9 (citing
Blackrock, 2018 WL 2215510, at *8 n.13).) It is axiomatic
that “[t]he burden of demonstrating relevance is on the party
seeking

discovery.”

Refco

Grp.

Ltd.,

LLC

v.

Cantor

Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 Civ. 1654, 2014 WL 5420225, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014). In denying Coventry’s motion, Judge
Cave found that Coventry had not shown that the remaining six
custodians “would provide unique, relevant and noncumulative
evidence.” (Discovery Order at 13.) Contrary to Coventry’s
characterization, Judge Cave did not require it to provide
examples of unique documents; rather, Judge Cave required it
to demonstrate that discovery from these custodians would be

1

The Court likewise finds that the Discovery Order’s citation of
Blackrock, 2018 WL 2215510, and Assured, 2013 WL 1195545, was appropriate.
Reliance on this caselaw is not rendered “contrary to law” because the
fact patterns in those cases differ from the fact pattern here.

5

Case 1:17-cv-07417-VM-SLC Document 274 Filed 03/15/21 Page 6 of 8

relevant and nonduplicative. The Court finds this standard
consistent with longstanding discovery principles.
Likewise,

the

Court

is

not

persuaded

by

Coventry’s

argument that Judge Cave erred in failing to explain the
disparate treatment of two similarly situated custodians -Barry John and William Simpson. The Discovery Order explains
its ruling with respect to these custodians, albeit in general
terms, and the Court is satisfied that this explanation is
sufficient. (See Discovery Order at 13.)
Because the Discovery Order’s ruling with respect to the
remaining six custodians was neither “clearly erroneous” nor
“contrary to law,” this aspect of the Objection is overruled.
B.

MOTION
TO
COMPEL
INTERROGATORIES
After

denying

SUPPLEMENTAL

Coventry’s

motion

RESPONSES

for

a

TO

preliminary

injunction, this Court indicated that Coventry had failed to
answer “threshold factual questions” demonstrating a threat
that EEA would dispose of its assets

and render itself

judgment proof. (See “Reconsideration Order,” Dkt. No. 116,
at 7-8.) Subsequently, and as relevant here, Coventry served
interrogatories on EEA seeking information about its assets
and cash transfers.
After

providing

unsatisfactory,

answers

Coventry

moved
6

that
to

Coventry

compel

deemed

supplemental

Case 1:17-cv-07417-VM-SLC Document 274 Filed 03/15/21 Page 7 of 8

responses.

In

denying

the

motion

to

compel,

Judge

Cave

explained that the interrogatories sought “information that
is extraneous to and cumulative of the information that EEA
Inc.

has

already

demonstrated

how

provided,”
responses

and
to

that

its

Coventry

had

Interrogatories

“not
would

reveal how EEA Inc. is purportedly attempting to render itself
judgment proof.” (Discovery Order at 20.)
The Court finds that this aspect of the Discovery Order
is both consistent with the applicable law and not “clearly
erroneous.” Contrary to Coventry’s argument, this Court’s
Reconsideration Order did not entitle it to unconditionally
collect

discovery

related

to

EEA’s

assets.

The

Court

explained instead that the “threshold factual questions”
concerned EEA’s ability to dispose of its assets and render
itself judgment proof. Information about EEA’s transfers and
a policy-by-policy quantification of the current net asset
value of each policy is, as Judge Cave correctly determined,
“extraneous.”
Moreover, the Court is persuaded that EEA did not waive
its relevance argument. (See Dkt. No. 244-1.) And even if
EEA’s objections to Coventry’s requests were “boilerplate,”
as Coventry insists, purportedly deficient responses do not
“automatically grant a party ‘carte blanche’ to irrelevant

7

Case 1:17-cv-07417-VM-SLC Document 274 Filed 03/15/21 Page 8 of 8

discovery.” New Falls Corp. v. Soni, No. Civ. 18-2768, 2020
WL 2836790, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020).
Because the Discovery Order’s ruling on Defendants’
motion

to

compel

supplemental

responses

is

not

“clearly

erroneous” or “contrary to law,” this aspect of Defendants’
Objection is also overruled.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendant Coventry Capital
US LLC’s objection (Dkt. No. 263) is hereby OVERRULED.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
15 March 2021

_________________________
VICTOR MARRERO
U.S.D.J.

8