Full text
0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Damian
This Document Relates to the Federal Securities Tranche
PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL ATTENDANCE OF DEFENDANT ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC. AT
PROPERLY NOTICED 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION
In re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 1 of 8
1
Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge, and named Plaintiffs Abraham Huacuja, Ava
Bernard, Brendan Clarke, Brian Harbison, Cecilia Rivas, Doi Nguyen, Joseph Gurney, Marcel
Poirier, Sandy Ng, Santiago Gil Bohórquez, and Thomas Cash (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
respectfully submit this discovery memorandum seeking the Court’s aid in compelling defendant
Robinhood Markets, Inc. (“Robinhood”) to appear for a properly noticed 30(b)(6) deposition.
Robinhood has refused to offer designees for the 30(b)(6) deposition for a majority of the topics
plaintiffs identified on the grounds that plaintiffs refused to agree to Robinhood’s legally
unsupported demand that Plaintiffs at the same time depose those designees in their personal
capacity.1
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiffs noticed the 30(b)(6) deposition of defendants Robinhood
Markets, Inc., Robinhood Securities LLC and Robinhood Financial LLC (collectively
“Defendants”) for June 5, 2021. Surprised at not having received any response or objections, on
June 1, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested counsel for Defendants notify them of the number of
attendees to be expected at the June 5 deposition in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office. On Friday, June 2,
2023, Defendants served responses and objections to the deposition notice and stated in an email
that Defendants would not appear for deposition on Monday, June 5, but Defendants never
provided or offered any alternative dates for the deposition.
On July 17, 2023, Plaintiffs served a revised 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Robinhood
Markets Inc. setting a date of August 25, 2023 for the deposition. The revised deposition notice
only named Robinhood Markets, the parent company as a deponent, and excluded the two
1 Attached as Exhibit A is Plaintiffs’ Revised Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition; Exhibit B is
Robinhood’s Objections and Responses to the Revised Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition; Exhibit C
is Plaintiffs Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition; and Exhibit D is Robinhood’s Objections and
Responses to Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 2 of 8
2
subsidiary defendants. In addition, the revised notice eliminated certain deposition topics and
clarified others. Robinhood Markets served responses and objections to the revised deposition
notice on August 1, 2023. Counsel for all parties met and conferred on August 2, 2023 concerning
the noticed 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Robinhood’s counsel that it was
acceptable to reschedule the deposition on any convenient date so long as it occurred no later than
September 8, as it was originally noticed for June 5. This provided Robinhood a 93-day delay and
allowed it more than 120 days from the date first noticed to prepare necessary witnesses for the
deposition.
The crux of this dispute is that Robinhood refuses to sit for a 30(b)(6) deposition for 53 of
the 57 noticed topics. Robinhood agreed only to provide a witness to testify as to four topics (41,
42, 44 and 45). These 4 topics relate solely to the existence of insurance policies, employee stock
trading policies, its human resources management system, and the nature of its data analytics
platform. Robinhood refuses to testify on any of the substantive issues in the case. The only basis
for Robinhood’s refusal to testify as to the 53 other topics is that it insists that Plaintiffs must
depose Robinhood’s designated 30(b)(6) witnesses in their personal capacity as fact witnesses on
the same date that these witnesses provide 30(b)(6) testimony as corporate designees of
Robinhood. Robinhood states it will not let Plaintiffs take the depositions of these people twice,
once as a 30(b)(6) designee and then again as fact witnesses.
Defendants have not produced the bulk of documents requested, particularly emails, and
Plaintiff intends to use the 30(b)(6) deposition to aid in the discovery process as well as to
understand Robinhood’s positions as to the important elements of the claims and defenses at issue.
Thus, an early 30(b)(6) is essential to Plaintiff’s roadmap for discovery and preparing its case for
trial. Combining the 30(b)(6) deposition with fact witness depositions will force Plaintiff to delay
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 3 of 8
3
the 30(b)(6) until Robinhood completes its production of documents, so that relevant documents
can be shown to specific fact witnesses.2 This will prevent Plaintiff from learning at an early stage
what exactly Robinhood’s positions are as to the relevant claims and defenses. It also prevents
Plaintiff from learning what potential sources of documents and other evidence may exist and who
potential witnesses may be. This will prejudice Plaintiffs by denying them the ability to engage in
discovery in the most effective and efficient manner.
There is no prohibition on deposing a witness in their individual and corporate capacities
on separate dates. A 30(b)(6) deposition is separate from a fact witness deposition and a party is
entitled to take a corporation’s testimony separate and apart from any testimony from the corporate
designee in his or her individual capacity. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Midland Rare
Coin Exch. Inc., No. 97-7422-CIV, 1999 WL 35148749, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 1999) (“[U]nder
both Local Rule 26.1.K, and Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff has the right
to depose Modist for six hours in a deposition under 30(b)(6), and subsequently depose Modist
under 30(b)(1) in his individual capacity for an additional six hours.”). This rule has been followed
extensively in the Southern District of Florida. DHL Express (USA), Inc. v. Express Save Indus.
Inc., No. 09-60276-CIV-COHN, 2009 WL 3418148, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2009)(protective
order denied because party did not show that the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition would be a waste of
time or duplicative of the individual deposition); Provide Com., Inc. v. Preferred Com., Inc., No.
07-80185-CIV, 2008 WL 360588, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2008)(protective order denied on grounds
that corporate deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) is distinct from individual deposition because both
serve two different purposes”); Ironshore Indem., Inc. v. Banyon 1030-32, LLC, No. 12-CV-61678,
2 In response to correspondence and at the August 2, meet and confer Robinhood was unable to
provide any date as to when it will complete document production.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 4 of 8
4
2014 WL 11531915, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2014) (Party must produce a Rule 30(b)(6)
representative for deposition, whether or not the prior individual testimony is adopted as corporate
testimony at such a deposition”). See also Smith v. General Mills, 2006 WL 7276959 (S.D. Ohio
Apr. 13, 2006) (“Courts have soundly rejected [the] argument that prior deposition testimony from
individual fact witnesses relieves a corporation from designating a corporate spokesperson in
response to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition.”). Nor does Robinhood’s offer to provide a
30(b)(6) witness as to four of the 57 topics excuse its obligation to provide a witness for the
remaining topics. “While corporations are permitted to appear through multiple witnesses, Rule
30(b)(6) does not permit a corporate defendant to unilaterally continue a properly noticed
deposition by failing to bring all designated witnesses on the date noticed.” Kartagener v. Carnival
Corp., 380 F. Supp. 3d 1290, 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2019).
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the testimony of particular employees as fact
witnesses would be duplicative or cumulative of Robinhood’s 30(b)(6) designee. Here there are
three affiliated, but separate, corporate defendants with different management and reporting
structures that were involved in the events at issue here. Thus, a 30(b)(6) deposition of the
corporate defendant will provide the corporation’s testimony on important topics which may vary
from the testimony of individual employees, particularly where an employee works for a different
subsidiary than Robinhood Markets. Robinhood is not a closely held company. At the time of the
relevant events it had over 2,100 employees and is now publicly traded with over $28 billion of
assets. Unlike small closely held entities, the knowledge and beliefs of individual Robinhood
officers and employees will not directly overlap with the knowledge and beliefs of the corporation
as a whole, particularly here where there are three corporate defendants and employees of each are
potential fact witnesses. See DHL Express (USA), Inc. v. Express Save Indus. Inc., No. 09-60276-
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 5 of 8
5
CIV-COHN, 2009 WL 3418148, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2009) citing, Sabre v. First Dominion
Capital, LLC, No. 01 Civ. 2145(BSJ)(HBP), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20637 at *18 (S.D.N.Y Dec.
10, 2001).
To the extent that Defendants claim that it is unduly burdensome on a witness to be required
to appear on two separate dates, once as a fact witness and once as a 30(b)(6) witness, it is a burden
that Defendants themselves create in their choice of individuals who are likely to appear as fact
witnesses as their 30(b)(6) designees. A 30(b)(6) deponent need not have personal knowledge of
the facts to which they testify. Indus. Eng'g & Dev., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No.
8:12-CV-691-T-24-MAP, 2014 WL 4983912, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2014); Fed. Deposit Ins.
Corp. v. Hutchins, No. 1:11-CV-1622-AT, 2013 WL 12109446, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2013).
Defendants can therefore simply avoid the claimed burden by designating a person for the 30(b)(6)
deposition who is not a potential fact witness.
Sanctions are appropriate under FRCP 37 if a party fails, after being served with a proper
30(b)(6) notice, to appear for deposition. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Brown, 69 F.4th 1321,
1327–28 (11th Cir. 2023).
Plaintiff requests the Court compel Robinhood Markets to appear for its 30(b)(6)
deposition on August 25, 2023 or on an agreed date within two weeks thereafter and to be fully
prepared to testify as to all of the 57 topics listed in the deposition notice. Plaintiff also requests
the Court impose appropriate sanctions on Robinhood in its discretion, including $10,000 in legal
fees to compensate Plaintiff for failing to appear at the properly noticed June 5th 30(b)(6)
deposition, causing an unnecessary 90-day delay in discovery, and for the time and effort in filing
and arguing this motion to compel Robinhood to testify as to all 57 topics listed in the August 25th
properly noticed 30(b)(6) deposition.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 6 of 8
6
Dated: August 7, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen, FBN# 0182877
Phillip Kim
Robin Bronzaft Howald
Jonathan Stern
Brent LaPointe
Michael Cohen
By: /s/ Laurence M. Rosen
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge and
Named Plaintiffs Abraham Huacuja, Ava Bernard,
Brendan Clarke, Brian Harbison, Cecilia Rivas, Doi
Nguyen, Joseph Gurney, Marcel Poirier, Sandy Ng,
Santiago Gil Bohórquez, and Thomas Cash
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 7 of 8
7
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), on August 2, 2023, undersigned Plaintiffs’ counsel
conferred separately with all parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a
good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and have been unable to do so.
/s/ Laurence M. Rosen
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 7, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served by CM/ECF to the parties registered to the Court’s CM/ECF system.
/s/ Laurence M. Rosen
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 8 of 8