Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 23, 2020·No. 1:16-cv-06496·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES =— = FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN USDC SDNY □□ □ FUND, LP., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS DOCUMENT © 8 FUND, L.P., AND ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES CATS V PITT RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and ELECT RON} CALLY FI LED all others similarly situated, DOC #__._ □□□□ DATE FILED:/ “23 Plaintiffs, | =

~V.- JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANE OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA| No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARTE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants.

[PROPOSED] PROTOCOL GOVERNING DEPOSITIONS

Subject to the approval of the Court, and pursuant to Section D of the Joint Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order entered by the Court on April 10, 2020 (“Scheduling Order’), the undersigned parties in the above-captioned Action stipulate and agree to the following Protocol Governing Depositions (“Protocol”). Defendants enter this stipulation and join in requesting the proposed order without waiving any personal jurisdiction or venue defenses and reserving all rights with respect to such defenses, and subject to and without waiver of any rights that exist under foreign law. I. SCOPE OF THE PROTOCOL 1. This Protocol shall govern all fact and expert depositions in the Action, subject to any modifications made pursuant to Paragraph 22 of this Protocol. Any matter not explicitly addressed in this Protocol shall be governed by the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York (“Local Rules”), and the individual rules of practice of Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (“Individual Rules”). Nothing in this Protocol is intended or shall be construed to alter or supersede the Protective Order entered June 15, 2020 (“Protective Order”) or the Scheduling Order. Il. PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES SUBJECT TO THE PROTOCOL 2. The parties (“Parties”) subject to this protocol are as follows: (a) Plaintiffs: Richard Dennis and Orange County Employees Retirement System (““OCERS”), (b) Defendants: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.; BNP Paribas, 8.A.; Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Credit Suisse AG; Deutsche Bank AG; Morgan Stanley;

2 vi

Morgan Stanley Australia Limited; Royal Bank of Canada; The Royal Bank of Scotland ple; UBS AG; and Westpac Banking Corporation.! 3. Non-parties deposed by the Parties are also subject to this Protocol and counsel for any Party serving a subpoena concerning a deposition of any non-party shall provide a copy of this Protocol to the non-party when the subpoena is served on the non-party. Hil. DEPOSITIONS 4, Remote Depositions. A “remote deposition,” for purposes of this Protocol, is one in which the deposing attorneys are not physically present with the witness, and a “live deposition” is one in which the deposing attorneys are physically present with the witness. Any witness to be deposed shall have the right to be deposed remotely, with the witness testifying from a suitable location of his or her choosing, and any deposing attomey shall have the right to take a deposition remotely. A witness may permit his or her own lawyers to be physically present in the same room as the witness during a remote deposition provided that such lawyers so identify themselves at the start of the deposition. In the event that a deposing Party has good cause to believe that a live deposition could be held safely, taking into account the health of the witness and other participants, the deposing Party may seek relief from this provision pursuant to Paragraph 22 of this Protocol. (a) Presence of Others and Communication with Deponent during a Remote Deposition. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 4(b) below, no individual may be physically present in the same room as the witness, except for the witness’s attorneys, while the witness is giving deposition testimony on the record during a remote deposition. All individuals participating in person shall engage in social distancing as required by the jurisdiction in which the deposition

' The parties subject to the Protocol are different than the parties in the case-caption because of the Court’s prior, partial dismissal rulmgs. See Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 343 F. Supp. 3d 122 (S.D.NLY. 2018); Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 439 F. Supp. 3d 256 (S.D.N-Y. 2020).

occurs. If the witness’s attorneys are physically present with the witness, the witness and the witness’s attorneys shall be visible on screen (as distinct from the video recording of the witness while giving record testimony). No individual shall communicate with the witness via outside means, including, but not limited to, electronic message, text message, or voice cail, while the witness is giving deposition testimony on the record regardless of whether or not a question is then pending before the witness. The witness’s attorneys may communicate with the witness with respect to instructions not to answer a pending question on the basis of privilege, and to the extent permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules or any applicable rule of evidence. (b) Presence of Court Reporter and Administration of Required Oath. Remote depositions shall be recorded by stenographic means consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3). If the witness agrees, the court reporter may be present in the same room as the witness. But if the witness does not agree to the court reporter being physically present, the court reporter need not be physically present with the witness whose deposition is being taken. The Parties agree that the court reporter is an “Officer” as defined by Fed. R, Civ. P. 28(a)(2) and shall be permitted to administer the oath to the witness via the remote platform. The Parties agree not to challenge the validity of any oath administered by the court reporter, even if the court reporter is not a notary public in the state where the deponent resides. Before the deposition begins, the court reporter must affirm that he or she can clearly hear the witness and Participants (defined in Paragraph 4(e) below). The court reporter’s transcript shall constitute the official record. At the outset of each deposition, the court reporter shall: (1) state his or her name, business name, and business address; (ii) state the current date and time;

(iii) state the caption of the case; (iv) state the name of the witness; and (v) state the name of the Party on whose behalf the deposition is being taken. (c) Required Technology. As further discussed below, the Party noticing a deposition to be conducted remotely must arrange for their chosen deposition service provider to provide all Participants (defined in Paragraph 4(e) below) with access to real time audio, video, and live transcription feeds of the deposition and access to all exhibits.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
343 F. Supp. 3d 122 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)