Motion to Enter Proposed Joint Addendum to Stipulated Order Regarding ESI Protocol and Format of Productions — In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Dkt. 381, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

A Motion to Enter Proposed Joint Addendum to Stipulated Order Regarding ESI Protocol and Format of Productions in In re: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA (Case No. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres), in the Southern District of Florida, entered August 14, 2021 as Document 381 (9 pages). Citing the Court's July 13, 2021 Order entering the ESI Protocol [ECF No. 341], the parties in the cases not governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act jointly move to enter the Joint Addendum attached as Exhibit A, having reached substantial but not complete agreement. The open disputes include Plaintiffs' proposals that custodians' phone billing statements with call and text details be produced (Part IV.C), citing Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., Case No. 10-23244-DIV, and that contact data be exported to Excel (Part IV.F).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres

IN RE:

JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
____________________________________/

This Document Relates to the Non-Federal Securities Actions

MOTION TO ENTER PROPOSED JOINT ADDENDUM TO STIPULATED ORDER
REGARDING ESI PROTOCOL AND FORMAT OF PRODUCTIONS

Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated July 13, 2021 entering the Stipulated Order Regarding
ESI Protocol and Format of Productions (the “ESI Protocol”) [ECF No. 341], Plaintiffs and
Defendants in the cases not governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15
U.S.C. § 78u04, et seq. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel,
hereby jointly and respectfully move for an entry of an Joint Addendum to Stipulated Order
Regarding ESI Productions, attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “ESI Addendum”).

The ESI Protocol provided that the Parties meet and confer concerning certain
items in the ESI Protocol and to report back to the Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of
the ESI Protocol. The Parties have met and conferred and, while reaching substantial agreement
as to many of the issues, were unable to reach agreement as to them all. The Parties exchanged
draft versions of the ESI Addendum. Through the Parties’ cooperation and diligence, the
remaining issues in dispute have been substantially narrowed and are set forth for the Court’s
guidance and resolution below. Competing provisions are identified by highlights in Exhibit A
along with the Proposing Party.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 1 of 9

2

A.
Parameters for Custodian ESI Collection [Ex. A, Part IV]
Plaintiffs’ Position.
1. Phone Records/Billing Statements (Part IV.C)
Plaintiffs propose that phone billing statements be produced for Custodians. Billing
statements generally contain more than an invoice, they also show itemized call and text details
for each phone number. See, e.g., T-Mobile & Sprint, Monthly Statement | Sprint Support,
https://www.sprint.com/en/support/solutions/account-and-billing/understand-the-monthly-
statement-page-on-sprint-com.html (last visited Aug. 13, 2021) (indicating call detail is provided
in billing statements for T-Mobile and Sprint users); Verizon, How to view & download mobile
bill statements & bill history, https://www.verizon.com/support/view-latest-bill/ (last visited Aug.
13, 2021) (Verizon bill statements show “data usage, call and text activity”) (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs have reason to believe from their review of the limited documents ordered produced
that many key communications occurred by telephone on or around January 28, 2021, and indeed,
many of the communications thus far reviewed are relevant to the allegations in Plaintiffs’
consolidated complaints. Billing statements that include those call details are relevant and
probative because it will aid the Parties in determining who called whom when on or around
January 28, 2021. See Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., Case No. 10-23244-DIV, 2011
WL 1135005, at **1-3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2011) (ordering production of “phone bills and records”
“including, but not limited to, cell phone bills and records and land-line bills and records”); see
also De La Torre v. Legal Recovery Law Office, Case No. 12-cv-2479-LAB (DHB), 2014 WL
1279738, at **2-3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014) (ordering production of phone bills where complaint
contains allegations of telephone communications).
2. Contact Data in Excel Format (Part IV.F)
Plaintiffs propose that contact data be exported to Excel or other spreadsheet format as
agreed to by the Parties. Plaintiffs have reason to believe from their review of the limited
documents previously produced that many key communications occurred on several different
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 2 of 9

3

platforms that may or may not export contacts into an easily readable format. Given the
multitude of cloud-based collaboration platforms in use, e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google
Chat, Google Hangouts, Skype, etc., email platforms and other digital messaging platforms, and
their general proliferation in business environments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, contacts
within those platforms should be produced in a standardized format, i.e., Excel or another
mutually agreed upon format.
Defendants’ Position
1. Phone Records/Billing Statements (Part IV.C)
Plaintiffs’ proposal would require Defendants to agree, at this early stage in the litigation,
to adopt parameters related to the production of billing statements and other phone records for all
phone numbers used by all Custodians.  It is premature to conclude, before discovery has even
commenced, that such phone records are relevant to this litigation, let alone that they are relevant
for all Custodians and for all of their phone numbers (whether used for work purposes or not).
Plaintiffs’ proposal also incorrectly presumes that each corporate defendant would somehow
have access to and control over the personal phone records of all Custodians.  Plaintiffs conceded
that these records could be gathered through a request for production. To the extent Plaintiffs
believe such records are relevant, they can request them as part of the discovery process and the
parties can consider their relevance at that time.  The limited purpose of this order is to adopt
parameters for potential productions for which discovery has not yet been propounded or the
relevance of the request been assessed.  Plaintiffs cite two cases where the production of phone
records was ordered.  However, neither case stands for the proposition that a party is entitled to
guarantee discovery of phone billing records in an ESI protocol before discovery has even
commenced. Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A. considered a motion to compel in the
context of document requests during the discovery process, No. 10-23244-CIV, 2011 WL 1135005,
at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2011), while the order granting the motion to compel in De La Torre v.
Legal Recovery Law Office only covered those portions of the requested phone bills that the
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 3 of 9

4

court considered relevant in light of the complaint, i.e., conversations between Plaintiff and
Defendant, and required redaction of all third party information, No. 12-CV-2579-LAB DHB,
2014 WL 1279738, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014).
2. Contact Data in Excel Format (Part IV.F)
Plaintiffs’ proposal would require Defendants to agree, at this early stage in the litigation,
that they will adopt parameters related to the production of all “contacts” records associated with
all Custodians’ email, phone, and other messaging applications.  It is premature to conclude,
before discovery has even commenced, that contacts records are relevant to this litigation, let
alone that they are relevant for all Custodians and for all of their phones and messaging
applications (whether used for work purposes or not).  To the extent Plaintiffs believe such
records are relevant, they can request them as part of the discovery process and the parties can
consider their relevance at that time.

Dated: August 14, 2021
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Joseph R. Saveri

JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
Joseph R. Saveri (CA SBN 130064)
Steven N. Williams (CA SBN 175489)
Christopher K.L. Young (CA SBN 318371)
Anupama K. Reddy (CA SBN 324873)
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone:  (415) 500-6800
Facsimile:   (415) 395-9940
Email:   jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
areddy@saverilawfirm.com
/s/ Peter Safirstein

SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
Peter Safirstein (NY SBN 2044550)
Elizabeth S. Metcalf (NY SBN 4644431)
1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10105
Tel: (212) 201-5845
psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com
emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 4 of 9

5

/s/ Natalia M. Salas

THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
Natalia M. Salas (FBN 44895)
James L. Ferraro (FBN 381659)
James Ferraro, Jr. (FBN 107494)
Bruce S. Rogow (FBN 067999)
Sean A. Burstyn (FBN 1028778)
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 375-0111
nms@ferrarolaw.com
jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
bsr@ferrarolaw.com
sab@ferrarolaw.com
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel
/s/ Frank Schirripa

Frank Schirripa (NY SBN 4103750)
Kathryn Hettler (NY SBN 5126065)
Seth Pavsner (NY SBN 4969689)
Eugene Zaydfudim (NY SBN 5204334)
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Ave, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 213-8311
fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
khettler@hrsclaw.com
spavsner@hrsclaw.com
ezaydufim@hrsclaw.com
Co-Lead Counsel for the Antitrust Tranche

Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 5 of 9

6

/s/ Kevin J. Orsini

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
Samuel A. Danon (FBN 892671)
Gustavo Javier Membiela (FBN 513555)
María Castellanos Alvarado (FBN 116545)
333 S.E. 2 Avenue, Suite 2400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 810-2500
Facsimile: (305) 810-2460
sdanon@huntonak.com
gmembiela@huntonak.com
mcastellanos@hunton.com
/s/ Marc De Leeuw

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
Marc De Leeuw
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
deleeuwm@sullcrom.com

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Antony L. Ryan
Kevin J. Orsini
Brittany L. Sukiennik
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
aryan@cravath.com
korsini@cravath.com
bsukiennik@cravath.com

Counsel for Defendants Robinhood
Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC,
and Robinhood Markets, Inc.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
Adam S. Paris
1888 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-6600
Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
parisa@sullcrom.com

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
Jennifer A. McLoone (Fla. Bar No. 0029234)
Citigroup Center Suite 3200
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone:  305-358-5171

Counsel for Defendant Ally Financial, Inc.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 6 of 9

7

/s/ Christopher D. Kercher

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
LLP
Christopher D. Kercher
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
New York, New York, 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
LLP
Marina E. Lev
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
marinalev@quinnemanuel.com

BARTLIT BECK LLP
Adam L. Hoeflich
Dawson Robinson
54 W. Hubbard St., Ste. 300
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 494-4400
Facsimile: (312) 494-4440
adam.hoeflich@bartlitbeck.com
dawson.robinson@bartlitbeck.com

Counsel for Defendants Citadel Enterprise
Americas, LLC and Citadel Securities LLC
/s/ Shari Ross Lahlou

DECHERT LLP
Shari Ross Lahlou
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 261-3300
Facsimile: (202) 261-3333
shari.lahlou@dechert.com

DECHERT LLP
Andrew J. Levander
Three Bryant Park
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone:  (212) 698 3500
Facsimile:   (212) 698 3599
andrew.levander@dechert.com

DECHERT LLP
Steven Bizar
Cira Centre
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (215) 994 4000
Facsimile: (215) 994 2222
steven.bizar@dechert.com

Counsel for Defendant Interactive Brokers
LLC

Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 7 of 9

8

/s/ Peter W. Homer

HOMER BONNER JACOBS ORTIZ, P.A.
Peter W. Homer (Florida Bar No. 291250)
1200 Four Seasons Tower
1441 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 350-5139
Facsimile: (305) 372-2738
phomer@homerbonner.com

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
Brian S. Weinstein
Gina Cora
Janet Jones-Duffey
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
Facsimile: (212) 701-5972
brian.weinstein@davispolk.com
gina.cora@davispolk.com
janet.jones-duffey@davispolk.com

E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE
Financial Holdings, LLC
/s/ Jack E. Pace III

WHITE & CASE LLP
Jack E. Pace III
Bryan D. Gant
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY  10020-1095
Telephone: (212) 819-8200
Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
jpace@whitecase.com
bgant@whitecase.com

WHITE & CASE LLP
J. Mark Gidley
701 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20005-3807
Telephone: (202) 626-3600
Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
mgidley@whitecase.com

WHITE & CASE LLP
Angela Daker
Southeast Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
Miami, FL  33131-2352
Telephone: (305) 995-5297
Facsimile: (305) 358-5744
adaker@whitecase.com

Counsel for Defendant Apex Clearing Corp.,
ETC & Peak 6

Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 8 of 9

9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 14, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk for the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. The electronic
case filing system (CM/ECF) will send a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to the attorneys of
record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by
electronic means.

By: /s/ Rachel W. Furst

Rachel W. Furst

rwf@grossmanroth.com
GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A.
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd Ste 1150
Coral Gables, FL 33134-6040
Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel

Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 381   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021   Page 9 of 9

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.381.0.pdf

Size

305,261 bytes

SHA-256

9f6a1fc0b2f54a11cf10d66f7fae7e30e198e8b2570199f0f6d509472e6cb854

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.381.0.pdf

Original

archive.org