Amley v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation

Filing 48

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Letter Motion for Discovery. If the parties are unable to resolve the privilege issues amongst themselves, letter-motions seeking judicial resolution of such issues shall be filed no later than Decem ber 21, 2020. Opposition letters shall be filed no later than December 24, 2020.2 Reply letters, if any, shall be filed no later than December 28, 2020. The Court therefore modifies its prior scheduling order to permit the parties to reschedule pla intiff's deposition for a mutually convenient date or dates in January 2021, subject to the fact discovery cutoff of January 22, 2021, which remains in effect. The parties' respective letter-motions seeking orders compelling discovery and /or protective orders are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent set forth above. Dkt. No. 45 shall remain under seal at the ex parte viewing level. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to modify the viewing level of Dkt. Nos. 40-1 7, 40-18, and 40-19 to applicable parties, permitting access only by the Court, plaintiff Ted Amley, and defendant Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, and to close the motion at Dkt. No. 40. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 12/8/2020) (cf)

Case 1:19-cv-03777-CM-BCM Document 48 Filed 12/08/20 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

12/8/2020

TED AMLEY,
Plaintiff,
-against-

19-CV-3777 (CM) (BCM)
ORDER

SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge.
For the reasons stated on the record during the December 7, 2020 conference, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Privilege Logs. Plaintiff Ted Amley complains that the privilege log produced by

defendant Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) is incomplete. See Pl. Ltr. dated Nov.
24, 2020 (Pl. Ltr.) (Dkt. No. 40) at 2. In addition, the parties agree that defendant has not yet served
a log with respect to documents that it produced in redacted form. See Pl. Ltr. at 2-3; Def. Ltr.
dated Dec. 2, 2020 (Def. Ltr.) (Dkt. No. 43) at 3. No later than December 14, 2020, defendant
shall serve its updated privilege log(s), in accordance with Local Civil Rule 26.2, covering all
documents which, as of that date, have been withheld in their entirety or produced in redacted
form on the basis of the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Defendant need not
log the materials described in ¶ 6(b) of the parties' Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored
Information (Protocol) (Dkt. No. 43-3). To the extent permitted by Rule 26.2 and ¶ 6(a) of the
Protocol, the log(s) may be "grouped in categories based on content." Protocol ¶ 6(a). The parties
are reminded, however, that Rule 26.2(a)(2)(A) requires the party asserting the privilege to
identify, among other things, "the relationship of the author, addressees, and recipients to each
other." This provision may be satisfied by the inclusion of a key or table which identifies each
author, addressee, or other recipient of the document(s) by affiliation and title (or role) and clearly

Case 1:19-cv-03777-CM-BCM Document 48 Filed 12/08/20 Page 2 of 6

indicates which such individuals are licensed attorneys acting as such. The parties are further
reminded that, while documents may be withheld or redacted for privilege, they may not – in the
absence of a stipulation or court order – be withheld or redacted on "confidentiality" or similar
grounds. 1 It is not clear to the Court whether plaintiff has withheld or redacted any documents on
privilege grounds. If he has, he must also produce a privilege log, in accordance with this Order,
no later than December 14, 2020.
2.

Privilege Redactions. Plaintiff contends that defendant has improperly redacted

numerous emails – either by over-redacting non-privileged content (including, for example, email
addresses, email headings, and subject matter fields), or, alternatively, by selectively redacting
arguably privileged content so as to benefit from portions favorable to it while depriving plaintiff
of the ability to rely on portions that may be favorable to him. See Pl. Ltr. at 2-3. The parties cannot
adequately meet and confer as to these issues, and the Court cannot resolve any remaining
disagreements, until defendant has served the privilege log(s) described above. Once plaintiff has
received the log(s), the parties shall promptly meet and confer in real time (e.g., by telephone or
videoconference) and in good faith to resolve, if possible, any remaining disputes regarding
defendant's claims of privilege. If the parties are unable to resolve the privilege issues amongst
themselves, letter-motions seeking judicial resolution of such issues shall be filed no later than
December 21, 2020. Opposition letters shall be filed no later than December 24, 2020. 2 Reply
letters, if any, shall be filed no later than December 28, 2020.

1

Confidential materials are protected by the Stipulation and Order Regarding Confidential
Information (Conf. Order) (Dkt. No. 26), which generally provides that documents designated
"confidential" may not be further disseminated, except to specified persons for use in connection
with this action, or publicly disclosed, and that production of documents containing "confidential"
information will not constitute a waiver of any trade secret or similar rights.
2

The Court is aware that December 24 is a court holiday. The ECF system, however, will remain
available for electronic filings.
2

Case 1:19-cv-03777-CM-BCM Document 48 Filed 12/08/20 Page 3 of 6

3.

Clawback Demands. Defendant asserts that it is entitled to the return of various

privileged documents that it inadvertently produced without adequate redactions. Def. Ltr. at 2.
Defendant must serve its "clawback letter" as to all such documents, see Conf. Order ¶ 22, no later
than December 14, 2020.
4.

RFPs 29 and 30. Defendant asserts that plaintiff has not yet fully complied with its

Requests for Production (RFPs) 29 and 30 (Dkt. No. 40-27, ¶¶ 29-30; Dkt. No. 43-4, ¶¶ 29-30),
which seek production of all documents that plaintiff took or received from SMBC and all SMBC
documents that he sent to a personal email address. See Def. Ltr. at 3. Plaintiff appears to concede
that he possesses additional documents, responsive to these RFPs, that are not yet produced. See,
e.g., Amley Decl. (Dkt. No. 40-2) ¶¶ 19-20. Plaintiff shall produce all responsive documents in his
possession, custody, or control no later than December 14, 2020.
Having demanded the production of such documents in discovery, and having obtained a
court order compelling their production, defendant is estopped from asserting that plaintiff's
compliance with this Order (or his counsel's assistance in ensuring compliance) constitutes a
violation of New York Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.6 or related ethics rules.
5.

Forensic Examination. Plaintiff seeks a protective order with respect to

defendant's demand (Dkt. No. 40-22) for a forensic examination of plaintiff's personal computers
and electronic devices. Pl. Ltr. at 3. Defendant seeks an order permitting the examination, arguing
that "[p]laintiff's production has been inadequate." Def. Ltr. at 4. Defendant has not made a
sufficient showing to warrant such an intrusive and burdensome procedure. Consequently, plaintiff
need not make his computers and devices available for a forensic inspection at this time. Nothing
herein is intended to relieve plaintiff of his preservation obligations with respect to all potentially
relevant documents.

3

Case 1:19-cv-03777-CM-BCM Document 48 Filed 12/08/20 Page 4 of 6

6.

Documents Concerning Investigations, Litigations, and Other SMBC

Employees. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant to produce documents in response to
RFPs 10, 23, and 24 within plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production (Dkt. No. 40-4 ¶¶ 10,
23-24), as well as plaintiff's Supplemental Request for Production, dated November 4, 2020 (Dkt.
No. 40-5), and his Second Supplemental Request for Production, dated November 10, 2020 (Dkt.
No. 40-6). Most of these RFPs are significantly overbroad, 3 and plaintiff has made no offer to
narrow them. Additionally, plaintiff improperly sought to compel production of the documents
demanded in his Supplemental and Second Supplemental Request less than 30 days after serving
them – before defendant's response was due. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). On this record, no
additional production will be compelled.
7.

Discovery Deadlines. The fact discovery deadline, as most recently extended by

this Court, is January 22, 2020. (Dkt. No. 36 at 3.) Plaintiff now seeks an order extending the
pretrial schedule to permit expert discovery, explaining that he intends to retain "an ethics
attorney" to present expert testimony to refute defendant's "frivolous allegations" that plaintiff
violated RPC 1.6 and/or other ethical rules applicable to New York attorneys. See Joint Ltr. dated
Nov. 25, 2020 (Jnt. Ltr.) (Dkt. No. 41) at 1-2; Pl. Ltr. dated Dec. 4, 2020 (Pl. Reply Ltr.) (Dkt. No.
46) at 2. Insofar as the record reveals, neither party sought to elicit expert evidence or conduct

3

For example, RFP 10 demands all documents concerning any governmental "investigation of
discriminatory and/or retaliatory practices," presumably relating to SMBC, but otherwise
unlimited. RFP 23 requests all documents "concerning any and all litigations involving Defendant
and allegations of discrimination and/or retaliation." RFP 24 demands documents "concerning any
and all affirmative defenses." The Supplemental Request demands documents sufficient to identify
"all violations of SMBC's Code of Conduct," or any other "rule, provision, or policy" relating to
document retention, by any SMBC employee from 2011 through 2017. According to its website,
SMBC has more than 28,000 employees in 448 domestic (Japanese) branches and 19 overseas
branches. See https://www.smbc.co.jp/global/aboutus/profile/company.html.
4

Case 1:19-cv-03777-CM-BCM Document 48 Filed 12/08/20 Page 5 of 6

expert discovery until now. See Jnt. Ltr. at 1. During the December 7 conference, plaintiff's counsel
confirmed that the ethics attorney is plaintiff's only anticipated expert witness.
"It is well-settled in this Circuit that expert opinions as to the interpretation and application
of domestic law are inadmissible." Thomsen v. Kefalas, 2018 WL 1508735 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26,
2018) (citing Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners' Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir. 1977)); see also
In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 174 F. Supp. 2d 61, 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (rejecting defendants'
attempt to submit opinion evidence from prominent legal ethics scholars as to whether the trial
judge was obligated to recuse herself). Since it appears that the expert opinion that plaintiff
proposes to offer would be inadmissible, plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to extend the
pretrial schedule for that purpose. Consequently, plaintiff's extension request is denied, but without
prejudice to renewal, on or before December 14, 2020, should plaintiff believe that he can
demonstrate that (a) the proposed expert testimony is not foreclosed by Marx and its progeny; and
(b) he did not wait too long to request an expert discovery period.
8.

Deposition Schedule. Plaintiff's deposition was to be completed by December 11,

2020. (Dkt. No. 36 at 3.) During the December 7 conference, both parties agreed to delay plaintiff's
deposition until January 2021, in hopes that their privilege disputes will have been resolved, and
certain third-party documents will have been produced, before the deposition is conducted. The
Court therefore modifies its prior scheduling order to permit the parties to reschedule plaintiff's
deposition for a mutually convenient date or dates in January 2021, subject to the fact discovery
cutoff of January 22, 2021, which remains in effect. The parties are reminded that in the absence
of a stipulation or court order to the contrary, there is no priority of deposition under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

5

Case 1:19-cv-03777-CM-BCM Document 48 Filed 12/08/20 Page 6 of 6

9.

Sealing Requests. Defendant has requested that the Court seal three email chains

attached to plaintiff's letter-motion (Dkt. Nos. 40-17, 40-18, and 40-19) which, according to
defendant, it inadvertently produced with inadequate privilege redactions and has since sought to
claw back. See Def. Ltr. at 5. By means of a separate letter-motion dated Dec. 2, 2020 (Def. Sealing
Mtn.) (Dkt. No. 44), defendant seeks to maintain under seal (ex parte) a wholly unredacted email
chain (Dkt. No. 45) which, according to defendant, reveals privileged attorney-client
communications and was submitted for in camera review "solely to demonstrate that the
documents contain privileged material." Def. Sealing Mtn. at 1. As to both requests, the Court is
satisfied that sealing is warranted under the standard set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
Conclusion
The parties' respective letter-motions seeking orders compelling discovery and/or
protective orders are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent set forth above.
Dkt. No. 45 shall remain under seal at the ex parte viewing level. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to modify the viewing level of Dkt. Nos. 40-17, 40-18, and 40-19 to applicable parties,
permitting access only by the Court, plaintiff Ted Amley, and defendant Sumitomo Mitsui Banking
Corporation, and to close the motion at Dkt. No. 40.
Dated: New York, New York
December 8, 2020
SO ORDERED.

________________________________
BARBARA MOSES
United States Magistrate Judge

6