Opinion
2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK
01-30-2023
In re J&J Investment Litigation
Joseph G. Went Nevada Bar No. 9220 Sydney R. Gambee Nevada Bar No. 14201 HOLLAND & HART LLP K. Issac deVyver (pro hac vice) Alicia A. Baiardo (pro hac vice) Anthony Q. Le (pro hac vice) MCGUIREWOODS Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Miles N. Clark (NBN 13848) LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC Liaison Counsel Daniel C. Girard (pro hac vice) Jordan Elias (pro hac vice) Makenna Cox (pro hac vice) GIRARD SHARP LLP Eric Gibbs (pro hac vice) David K. Stein (pro hac vice) Emily Beale (pro hac vice) GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP Jeffrey C. Schneider (pro hac vice) Jason K. Kellogg (pro hac vice) Marcelo Diaz-Cortes (pro hac vice) LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP Robert L. Brace (pro hac vice) LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. BRACE Interim Co-Lead Counsel Joseph G. Went Nevada Bar No. 9220 Sydney R. Gambee Nevada Bar No. 14201 HOLLAND & HART LLP K. Issac deVyver (pro hac vice) Alicia A. Baiardo (pro hac vice) Anthony Q. Le (pro hac vice) MCGUIREWOODS
Joseph G. Went Nevada Bar No. 9220 Sydney R. Gambee Nevada Bar No. 14201 HOLLAND & HART LLP K. Issac deVyver (pro hac vice) Alicia A. Baiardo (pro hac vice) Anthony Q. Le (pro hac vice) MCGUIREWOODS Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Miles N. Clark (NBN 13848) LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC Liaison Counsel
Daniel C. Girard (pro hac vice) Jordan Elias (pro hac vice) Makenna Cox (pro hac vice) GIRARD SHARP LLP Eric Gibbs (pro hac vice) David K. Stein (pro hac vice) Emily Beale (pro hac vice) GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP Jeffrey C. Schneider (pro hac vice) Jason K. Kellogg (pro hac vice) Marcelo Diaz-Cortes (pro hac vice) LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
Robert L. Brace (pro hac vice) LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. BRACE Interim Co-Lead Counsel
Joseph G. Went Nevada Bar No. 9220 Sydney R. Gambee Nevada Bar No. 14201 HOLLAND & HART LLP K. Issac deVyver (pro hac vice) Alicia A. Baiardo (pro hac vice) Anthony Q. Le (pro hac vice) MCGUIREWOODS
The Hon. Gloria M. Navarro, Judge:
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL BRIEFING SCHEDULE FIRST REQUEST
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs Barret Henzel, Allan Carso, Gary Lundin, Joshua Luekenga, Craig Rodney Michaelis, Bryce Kelly, Clint McDaniel, and Dan Michael (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for its first request to modify the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) (ECF No. 62). Wells Fargo has requested a modification to the briefing schedule because the disputes implicate the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and requirements relating to the federal suspicious activity report (“SAR”) privilege-issues of significant importance to Wells Fargo and its regulators that enforce these requirements. Plaintiffs do not oppose this request, but otherwise do not take a position on Wells Fargo's request. Plaintiffs withdraw their request for an extension on the reply brief. In support of the stipulation and request for modification of the briefing schedule, and pursuant LR 7-1 and LR IA 6-2, the Parties state as follows:
1. On January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Discovery under Fed. R Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) (“Motion”).
2. Plaintiffs' Motion places at issue seven requests (Nos. 1, 13-17, 19) from their First Set of Production of Documents and seeks discovery regarding (i) account-opening procedures, (ii) account-monitoring systems, (iii) account reviews and investigations by bank personnel, and (iv) corporate policies and procedures. See Motion at 8.
3. In Wells Fargo's responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP Responses”), Wells Fargo objected and asserted the SAR privilege, stating that Plaintiffs sought disclosure of information relating to statutory and regulatory requirements for detecting and reporting potentially suspicious transaction activity as described in the BSA, 31 U.S.C. § 5318, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 21.11, 31 C.F.R. § 103.18, 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2)(A)(i), and applicable regulatory guidance.
4. Wells Fargo contends that under the BSA, banks are required to file a SAR when they detect a known or suspected violation of federal law or a suspicious transaction relating to money laundering or terrorist financing. See 12 C.F.R. § 21.11. It is Wells Fargo's position tha the scope of the SAR privilege implicates extremely sensitive information that should be given the utmost care and consideration because federal law prohibits a bank from disclosing a SAR oi whether a SAR has been filed. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2); 12 C.F.R. § 21.1 l(k).
5. Wells Fargo has requested a one-week extension to file its opposition to Plaintiff s Motion.
6. Wells Fargo contends that good cause exists to modify the briefing schedule because (i) the Parties' disputes concerning the scope of the SAR privilege and the requirements under the BSA involve a sensitive area of law with federal prohibitions, regulator interest, and public policy considerations, (ii) there is conflicting case law outside of this Circuit on these issues, and (iii) Wells Fargo has requested a limited extension of time of seven days.
7. Wells Fargo requests modification of the current briefing schedule on the Motion as follows:
| Event | Current Deadline | Proposed New Deadline |
| Wells Fargo Response to Plaintiff s Motion | January 31,2023 | February 7, 2023, or on another date convenient for the Court |
| Plaintiffs' Reply to Wells Fargo's Response | February 7,2023 | February 14, 2023, or on another date convenient for the Court. |
| Hearing on the Motion | None Set | No Change |
8. Plaintiffs, without joining in Wells Fargo's characterizations in of the BSA in paragraph 4 above, take no position on Wells Fargo's request and do not seek an extension for their reply brief. If the Court approves this stipulation, Plaintiffs will reply to Wells Fargo's opposition within the time contemplated by Local Rule 7-2(b)-seven days after service of the response. In other words, should the Court grant Wells Fargo's request for an extension for its opposition to February 7, 2023, Plaintiff will respond no later than February 14, 2023.
9. The Parties reached this stipulation in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate, and respectfully request that the Court order, as follows:
1. Wells Fargo's response deadline to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery is extended up to and including February 7, 2023.
2. Plaintiffs' deadline to reply to Wells Fargo's response, consistent with the time allocated for reply in the Local Rules, is due February 14, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.