Exhibit D: Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (Document 586-4)
Summary
Exhibit D to Document 586 in In re: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA, Document 586-4), entered on the FLSD docket August 7, 2023: the 54-page responses and objections of the Robinhood defendants to Plaintiffs' Rule 30 corporate-representative deposition notice, dated June 2, 2023. Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC respond to the deposition notice dated May 5, 2023 served by Lead Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge and the named Plaintiffs with general objections and specific responses to Topics 1 through 59, the last of which Defendants call an impermissible catch-all topic. The responses are signed /s/ Antony Ryan for Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP with Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, and a certificate of service by Kathleen Young records electronic-mail service on The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 2, 2023.
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
- Date
- 2023-08-07
Cite this document
“Exhibit D: Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (Document 586-4).”
Original at archive.org, dated 2023-08-07. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2023-08-07-covid-era-misc-635041f4-1/
, SHA-256 635041f4a79eabff1a962e2c56e4230fa8034d997f8646c249de598576b5c4da.Full text
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 1 of 54
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 2 of 54
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
In re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE Case No. 21-2989-MDL-
TRADING LITIGATION ALTONAGA/Damian
This Document Relates to the Federal Securities Tranche
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, the Local Civil Rules for the
Southern District of Florida (“Local Rules”) and any other applicable laws or rules, Robinhood
Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC (collectively,
“Defendants”) hereby submit the following responses and objections (“Responses”) to Lead
Plaintiff Blue Laine-Beveridge, 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’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Notice of Rule 30(b)(6)
Deposition dated May 5, 2023 (the “Notice”), inclusive of the Topics for Robinhood 30(b)(6)
Deposition in Schedule A of the Notice (the “Topics”), in the above-captioned litigation
(“Action”).
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The General Objections set forth below are incorporated in Defendants’ Specific
Responses to each Topic set forth in Schedule A of the Notice. Defendants’ response to any
Topic is not and shall not be deemed a waiver of Defendants’ General Objections.
1. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including, without limitation, the
Definitions therein, on the ground and to the extent that they purport to impose duties and
1
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 3 of 54
obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and/or any applicable rule or
law (together, the “Applicable Rules”). Subject to and without waiving any General or Specific
Objections, to the extent Defendants provide information in response to the Notice, Defendants
will construe the Topics in accordance with the Applicable Rules.
2. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including the Definitions set forth
therein, to the extent that it seeks information that is cumulative or duplicative, including of
Plaintiffs’ First Requests for Production of Documents, dated September 30, 2022. It would be
premature to offer 30(b)(6) testimony on any Topics cumulative or duplicative of document
requests for which Defendants will apply search terms to identify responsive material. Plaintiffs
have failed to respond to Defendants’ proposed search terms for more than three months, which
has substantially delayed Defendants’ review of custodial documents.
3. Defendants object generally to the Notice to the extent it requires Defendants to
designate a witness from a particular corporate entity to testify with respect to Topics about
which it has no knowledge or requires Defendants to designate duplicative witnesses from
different corporate entities to testify with respect to the same Topic.
4. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including the Definitions set forth
therein, to the extent that it would require disclosure of information that comes within the scope
of the attorney-client privilege; the common interest or joint defense privilege; the attorney
work product doctrine; privilege from disclosure of communications with litigation consultants
and insurers to the extent recognized by applicable law; or any other applicable privilege,
protection or immunity (collectively, “Privilege”). Defendants hereby claim such Privilege to
the extent implicated by each Topic and, to the extent Defendants provide information in
2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 4 of 54
response to the Notice, will exclude such privileged information from its Responses.
Defendants’ Response to any Topic should not be construed as an acknowledgement by
Defendants that the Topic is proper or calls for anything other than privileged information.
Further, any inadvertent disclosure of information protected by any Privilege shall not be
deemed a waiver of that Privilege.
5. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including the Definitions set forth
therein, to the extent that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize facts in describing
the Topics. Defendants hereby deny any such disputed facts or characterizations to the extent
assumed by any of the Topics. Any provision of information in response to the Notice with
respect to any such Topic is without prejudice to this Objection.
6. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including the Definitions set forth
therein, to the extent that it contains inaccurate, incomplete or misleading descriptions of the
facts, persons, relationships and/or events underlying the Action. Defendants further object to
the Notice, including the Definitions set forth therein, to the extent that it assumes the existence
of facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not take place. Any provision of
information in response to the Notice is not intended to provide, and shall not constitute or be
construed as providing, an admission that any factual predicates stated in the Notice are
accurate.
7. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including the Definitions set forth
therein, as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks or inquires as to “any,” or
“all,” documents related to a Topic.
8. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including the Definitions set forth
therein, as overbroad to the extent that it seeks information unrelated to Counts I and II alleged
3
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 5 of 54
in Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Claims”) in the Federal
Securities Tranche. To the extent Defendants agree to provide information, they will do so only
to the extent such information relates to the Claims currently pending in the Southern District of
Florida. Defendants further object to the Notice to the extent it seeks information related to
other claims alleged in the Antitrust Tranche.
9. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including the Definitions set forth
therein, to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, lacking
in particularity, unreasonable or seeks the discovery of information that is not relevant to the
claims or defenses of any party to the pending Action, as well as to the extent that it is unduly
burdensome because it imposes a significant expense and inconvenience on Defendants.
10. Defendants object generally to the Notice to the extent it calls for discovery that
is more easily available through other, less burdensome means, including other discovery
devices such as document requests, interrogatories and individual depositions.
11. Defendants object generally to the Notice to the extent that any Topic set forth
therein calls for expert testimony.
12. Defendants object generally to the Notice to the extent that it calls for legal
conclusions as to Defendants’ beliefs or is predicated on legal conclusions or arguments.
13. Defendants object generally to the Notice, including the Definitions set forth
therein, to the extent that it purports to require Defendants to designate and produce for
examination a witness to testify about matters: (i) beyond those that are known or reasonably
available to Defendants, (ii) that are more appropriate for examination of individual witnesses in
their individual capacities or (iii) about which Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to examine
individual witnesses in their individual capacities. For any witnesses designated to testify
4
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 6 of 54
regarding a Topic in the Notice, Defendants will object to any attempt by Plaintiffs to depose
that witness in their personal capacity at a later date; Defendants only agree to make witnesses
available for a deposition on one occasion.
14. Defendants object generally to the Notice to the extent that it seeks information
from a time period that is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of this case. Defendants
further object to the Notice to the extent that it purports to require Defendants to search for
information not centrally maintained by, or on behalf of, persons believed to have had a
significant connection to the parties’ claims or defenses in this Action.
15. Defendants object generally to the Notice to the extent that it seeks testimony
without limitation as to time. Subject to and without waiving any General or Specific
Objections, Defendants will apply the Relevant Period to each Topic unless otherwise specified.
16. To the extent Defendants provide information in response to the Notice,
Defendants do so without waiver of or prejudice to (a) their rights at any later time to raise
objections as to the competence, relevance, materiality, privilege, work product character and
admissibility as evidence, for any purpose, of (i) the Notice or any part thereof or (ii) statements
made in response to the Notice or any part thereof; or (b) the right to object to the use of any of
the information disclosed in any subsequent proceedings or the trial of this or any other Action;
or (c) the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand for further response to these or
other discovery requests in these Action. Any response or objection to an individual Topic is
not an acknowledgement that the information requested therein exists or is in Defendants’
possession, custody or control.
17. Defendants provide the General Objections subject to further discovery in this
Action as well as further verification and research. Defendants reserve the right to modify,
5
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 7 of 54
supplement or amend any or all of the General Objections, if necessary or appropriate, and to
produce additional non-privileged information. Moreover, any purported failure on Defendants’
part to provide information, or to set forth a particular legal argument, in response to the Notice
shall not constitute any waiver or forfeiture of Defendants’ right to identify or rely upon
additional relevant facts, documents and/or witnesses, or to make specific legal arguments, as
this litigation progresses.
18. Defendants reserve the right, but do not assume any obligation to revise, correct,
supplement or clarify the content of the Responses herein.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
19. Defendants object to the Definitions and any directions, definitions or
instructions contained in the Notice to the extent that they alter the generally understood
definitions under the Federal Rules or seek to impose on Defendants obligations beyond those
required by the Applicable Rules.
20. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Action” on the ground that it
should refer only to the Federal Securities Tranche.
21. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Alleged Omissions and Half-
Truths” because the statements referred to in Topics 25, 26 and 27 do not contain actionable
omissions and are not “half-truths.”
22. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Email” to the extent that it
purports to impose any obligation on Defendants to search particular “personal computing
devices, smartphones, [or] tablets” not used by potential custodians in the regular course of
business.
23. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Employee” as vague and
6
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 8 of 54
ambiguous as to the terms “agents” and “representatives”, and overbroad, unduly burdensome
and not proportional to the needs of this case to the extent the definition includes “any Person
acting or authorized or act on behalf of an entity.” For purposes of responding to this Notice,
Defendants will construe “Employee” to refer to individuals employed by Defendants, and will
exclude from the definition agents or representatives who are not directly employed by
Defendants.
24. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Financial Statements” as vague
and ambiguous as to the terms “budget plans,” “commentary” and “workpapers.” Defendants
further object to this definition as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the
needs of this case to the extent this definition includes “all notes or other commentary” and “all
underlying work papers and all drafts” related to Financial Statements.
25. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “‘Identify’ when used to refer to a
Document” as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case as to
subparts (ii)-(iv), which would require an impossible, impracticable or unreasonable amount of
preparation or memorization of information to permit any witness or group of witnesses to be
able to address comprehensively.
26. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “‘Identify’ when used to refer to a
natural person” as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case
as to subparts (ii)-(iv), which would require an impossible, impracticable or unreasonable
amount of preparation or memorization of information to permit any witness or group of
witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
27. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Meme Stock Market Event” as
vague and ambiguous as to the terms “facts and circumstances” and “gave rise to.” Defendants
7
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 9 of 54
further object to this definition as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the
needs of this case to the extent this definition includes no time limitation and goes beyond
information related to the claims and defenses in this Action. For purposes of responding to this
Notice, Defendants will construe “Meme Stock Market Event” to refer to the volatility
experienced in the pricing and trading of volatile stocks, including the Later-Restricted Stocks,
between December 2020 and February 2021, and the trading restrictions implemented by
various broker-dealers, relevant to the claims and defenses in this Action.
28. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Regard,” “regarding,” “refer,”
“referring,” “relate,” relating,” “pertain,” or “pertaining” as vague and ambiguous. Defendants
further object to this definition as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the
needs of this case to the extent this definition includes documents that “implicitly refer to” or
were “reviewed in conjunction with” the “subject matter of the Request.”
29. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Restrictions” as overbroad,
unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case to the extent this definition
does not include a specific time period. Defendants further object to this definition to the extent
its assumes that Defendants forced the sale of stocks or options. For purposes of responding to
this Notice, Defendants will construe “Restrictions” as the trading restrictions referenced in the
Complaint and that were imposed on the Affected Stocks and Later-Restricted Stocks during the
putative Class Period.
30. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Restriction Period” as vague and
ambiguous as to the terms “first imposition” and “lifting.” Defendants further object to this
definition as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case to the
extent this definition includes “any form of restriction.”
8
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 10 of
54
31. Defendants object to the Notice’s definition of “Robinhood” and “Company” as
overbroad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case to the extent this
definition includes “partners” and “affiliates” of Robinhood. For the purposes of responding to
this Notice, Defendants will construe “Robinhood” to mean Robinhood Markets, Inc.,
Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC.
9
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 11 of
54
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
Defendants incorporate their General Objections to each of the Responses that
follow as if such General Objections were set forth therein. Any Specific Objections set forth in
the Responses are in addition to those General Objections and, unless otherwise specified,
Defendants’ Responses are limited in accordance with both the General Objections and Specific
Objections.
Topic No. 1.
The communications media, devices, platforms, and applications used by
Robinhood’s employees for work-related communications.
Response to Topic No. 1.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative
or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 79, in response to which Defendants have
answered Plaintiffs’ questions at the meet and confer on November 28, 2022 and in their March
1, 2023 letter. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information
more easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories). Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “communications
media,” “platforms” and “work-related communications” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to the claims
or defense of the parties nor proportionate to the needs of the case.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 1.
Topic No. 2.
The hardware devices used by Robinhood’s employees to perform their work-
related functions.
10
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 12 of
54
Response to Topic No. 2.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 79, in response to which
Defendants have answered Plaintiffs’ questions at the meet and confer on November 28, 2022
and in their March 1, 2023 letter. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it
seeks information more easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g.,
interrogatories). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic
such as “work-related functions” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to the claims or defense of the
parties nor proportionate to the needs of the case.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 2.
Topic No. 3.
Robinhood’s policies and procedures related to the use of personal
communications devices, personal email, personal computing devices or any non-Robinhood
maintained device work related communications or any work-related functions, including but not
limited to the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 3.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative
or duplicative of information that Defendants have previously provided to Plaintiffs in their
March 1, 2023 letter. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks
information more easily available through other, less burdensome discovery means (e.g.,
interrogatories or document requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds
that terms in this Topic such as “the location and identification of all Documents related to this
topic” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to the claims or defense of the parties nor
11
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 13 of
54
proportionate to the needs of the case.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 3.
Topic No. 4.
Robinhood’s record retention policies and practices, including but not limited to:
(a) The location, format, accessibility, architecture, and quantity of Robinhood’s
electronically stored information, including all personal computing devices
(including phones and tablets), network servers, cloud servers, instant
messaging, enterprise servers, and email servers;
(b) Robinhood’s litigation hold, if any, concerning Documents relevant to this
litigation; specifically, when such a hold was instituted, to whom, and how
such a hold is being monitored for compliance.
Response to Topic No. 4.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative
or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 78, in response to which Defendants
have answered Plaintiffs’ questions about the litigation hold at the meet and confer on
November 28, 2022 and in their March 1, 2023 letter, and that it is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 77, in response to which Defendants agreed
in their March 1, 2023 letter to produce data retention policies. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more easily available through other, less
burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document requests). Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “accessibility,” “architecture” and
“quantity” are vague and ambiguous and subsection (a) is overbroad and unduly burdensome as
to all of Defendants’ ESI. Defendants further object to the use of the term “architecture” in
subsection (a) to the extent it seeks confidential, trade secret, competitive, business, or other
proprietary information. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks
information neither relevant to the claims or defense of the parties nor proportionate to the needs
of the case. Defendants further object to this Notice to the extent subsection (b) seeks
12
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 14 of
54
information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine
or any other applicable privileges or immunities.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 4, with the
exception of those to whom Robinhood’s litigation hold was sent.
Topic No. 5.
Document production: Robinhood’s production of Documents in this litigation,
including but not limited to the manner in which Documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests
For Production of Documents, were searched for, identified, and retrieved, and the databases,
hardware, and devices searched.
Response to Topic No. 5.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it would be premature to offer
30(b)(6) testimony on this Topic, as Defendants are waiting on an agreement on search terms to
begin their review. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of information that Defendants have previously provided to Plaintiffs
in correspondence and meet and confers regarding Plaintiffs’ document requests. Defendants
further object to this Topic to the extent Plaintiffs seek information about the format of
Defendants’ productions to which the parties’ ESI protocol requires a specific format.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“Robinhood’s production of Documents” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object
to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to the production of
tens of thousands of documents responsive to dozens of Plaintiffs’ document requests.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant
to the claims or defense of the parties nor proportionate to the needs of the case. Defendants
further object to this Notice to the extent subsection (b) seeks information protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-produce doctrine or any other applicable
13
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 15 of
54
privileges or immunities.
Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding Topic No. 5.
Topic No. 6.
Custodians whose files were searched in connection with Robinhood’s production
of Documents in this litigation, including but not limited to, the location and identification of all
documents related to this topic
Response to Topic No. 6.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative
or duplicative of information that Defendants have previously provided to Plaintiffs, as reiterated
in their March 1, 2023 letter. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms
in this Topic such as “in connection with” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object
to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location an
identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants are willing to provide a response to an interrogatory seeking this
information.
Topic No. 7.
Robinhood’s public statements concerning the Meme Stock Market Event,
including but not limited to, the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 7.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic to the extent that Plaintiffs seek the “location
and identification of all Documents,” including those that are publicly available or already in
their possession. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic
such as “public statements” are vague and ambiguous.
14
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 16 of
54
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 7.
Topic No. 8.
Robinhood’s public statements about the Restrictions it imposed on trading in the
Affected Stocks, including but not limited to, the location and identification of all Documents
related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 8.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more easily
available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document requests).
Defendants further object to this Topic to the extent that Plaintiffs seek the “location and identification
of all Documents,” including those that are publicly available or already in their possession. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “public statements” are vague
and ambiguous.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 8.
Topic No. 9.
Robinhood’s statements to its customers about the Restrictions it imposed on
trading or lifted on the Affected Stocks, including but not limited to, the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 9.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 19-23, for which Defendants
agreed to produce a representative sample of customer communications. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “statements” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome as to seeking “the location and identification of all Documents related to this
15
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 17 of
54
topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 9.
Topic No. 10.
The trading Restrictions Robinhood imposed during the Meme Stock Market
Event. In particular:
(a) The nature and extent of each of the Restrictions;
(b) The precise time each Restriction was announced, imposed and lifted;
(c) The details of the processes by which Robinhood’s decision to impose (and
lift) each of the Restrictions was discussed, evaluated, approved,
implemented, and publicized, including the identities, by job title and
specific roles and responsibilities, of any persons involved in such decisions;
(d) The reasons Robinhood imposed and lifted each of the trading Restrictions
at the various times during the Restrictions Period;
(e) The basis for how Robinhood selected the stocks on which to impose and lift
Restrictions during the two weeks prior to, and during, the Restrictions
Period, including but not limited to each factor Robinhood considered in
determining whether or not to impose or lift Restrictions and the sources of
information from which those factors were evaluated and determined;
(f) Robinhood’s consideration of its customers’ reactions to the imposition and
lifting of the Restrictions;
(g) Robinhood’s consideration of the possibility that purchasing demand for the
Affected Stocks or Later Affected Stocks might decline when Robinhood
imposed the Restrictions;
(h) Robinhood’s consideration of the possibility that selling pressure for the
Affected Stocks or Later Affected Stocks might increase when Robinhood
imposed the Restrictions;
(i) Robinhood’s consideration of the possibility that the prices of the Affected
Stocks or Later Affected Stocks might decline when Robinhood imposed the
Restrictions;
(j) Robinhood’s consideration and discussion of the impact a decline in the
prices of the Affected Stocks or Later Affected Stocks would have on its
customers, the market as a whole, market participants with positions in the
Later Affected Stocks, Robinhood itself and its business relationships,
including the Identity of any participants in any such discussions;
(k) The names, titles, functions, and roles of all persons responsible for and/or
participating in the decisions to implement or lift any such Restrictions;
(l) The location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 10.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
16
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 18 of
54
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of information that Defendants have indicated they will provide to
Plaintiffs (e.g., Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 3, 28, 30-31, 48, 57-58, 61-63, which are
subject to search terms). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that Topic 10(b)
is partially duplicative of Topic 9. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that
terms in this Topic such as “nature and extent” and “customers’ reactions” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome as to seeking “the identities, by job title and specific roles and
responsibilities, of any persons involved in such decisions” in subsections (c), (j) and (k).
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
burdensome as to seeking “location and identification of all Documents related to this topic” in
subsection (l). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed
facts and calls for improper 30(b)(6) testimony on legal theories, contentions or conclusions as to
Defendants’ consideration of purchasing demand (subsection (g)), Defendants’ consideration of
selling pressure (subsection (h)) and Defendants’ consideration of price decline (subsections (i)-
(j)). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information that would
require an impossible, impracticable, or unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of
information to permit any witness or group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding Topic No. 10.
Topic No. 11.
Why Robinhood maintained position limits on several of the Affected Stocks as
late as the market close on February 4, 2021, given that “Robinhood’s collateral deposit
requirements were within manageable levels by January 29, 2021, and the company had raised
the capital that its models suggested was sufficient to handle shock scenarios by the end of the
day on February 2, 2021,” as referenced in the HFSC Report at 75, including but not limited to,
the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
17
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 19 of
54
Response to Topic No. 11.
Defendants object to this Topic to the extent Plaintiffs seek information regarding
a third party’s characterization of relevant events. Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it seeks information more easily available through other, less burdensome means
(e.g., interrogatories or document requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Topic 10(c)-(d). Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to seeking
“the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.” Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize
facts, including that “Robinhood maintained position limits on several of the Affected Stocks as
late as the market close on February 4, 2021” due to its “collateral deposit requirements.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 11.
Topic No. 12.
All bases for the comment (see RHMDL00077158) that Robinhood’s customers
represented more than 10% of the market for the Affected Stocks just prior to and/or during the
Restrictions Period including but not limited to, the location and identification of all Documents
related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 12.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., a fact deposition of the individual
who made the relevant statement). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it
assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize facts, including that “Robinhood’s customers
represented more than 10% of the market for the Affected Stocks just prior to and/or during the
Restrictions Period.” Defendants further object to this Topic to the extent it seeks personal
mental impressions or personal knowledge and not Defendants’ position, beliefs and opinions or
18
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 20 of
54
facts within the knowledge of the corporation.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 12.
Topic No. 13.
The existence and nature of any testimony or interviews with Robinhood
employees regarding the Meme Stock Market Event, including but not limited to, the location
and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 13.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories). Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “nature of” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad as it
seeks “any testimony or interviews with Robinhood Employees.” Defendants further object to
this Topic on the grounds that it is partially duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production
No. 4, which requested testimony of Vlad Tenev before the House Financial Services Committee
that is publicly available, as Defendants noted in their January 5, 2023 letter. Defendants further
object to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-
client privilege, the work-produce doctrine or any other applicable privileges or immunities,
such as interviews held by legal personnel.
Defendants are willing to provide a response to an interrogatory seeking this
information.
Topic No. 14.
The daily amount of PFOF earned by Robinhood from each of its six market
makers on each of the Later Restricted Stocks during the Relevant Period, including any
communications about this subject that occurred during the Relevant Period, including but not
limited to the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
19
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 21 of
54
Response to Topic No. 14.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., document requests). Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “this subject” are
vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 65 and 66.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad as it seeks “any
communications about this subject” and “the location and identification of all Documents related
to this topic.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that PFOF is not relevant
to Plaintiffs’ allegations, which Defendants noted in the meet and confer on December 15, 2022.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports
to characterize facts, including that defendants earned PFOF “from each of its six market makers
on each of the Later Restricted Stocks during the Relevant Period” and that Defendants can
provide data on a daily basis as requested by this Topic. Defendants further object to this Topic
on the grounds that it seeks information that would require an impossible, impracticable, or
unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of information to permit any witness or
group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding Topic No. 14.
Topic No. 15.
How Robinhood’s PFOF from Citadel and other market makers was calculated
during the Relevant Period, any changes, adjustments to the fees paid by Citadel or other brokers
for PFOF, how and why the formulas for PFOF changed over that time period, and any contracts
pursuant to which they were paid, including but not limited to, the location and identification of
all Documents related to this topic.
20
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 22 of
54
Response to Topic No. 15.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 65. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “calculated,” “changes” and
“adjustments” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds
that PFOF is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations, which Defendants noted in the meet and
confer on December 15, 2022.
Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding Topic No. 15.
Topic No. 16.
The project or proposal that Robinhood discussed with Citadel beginning on or
around January 20, 2021, as referenced in ¶¶ 226-32 of the Antitrust Complaint (Dkt. No 451),
including but not limited to, the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 16.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., fact depositions or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 56. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “project or proposal” are
vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks
information neither relevant to the claims or defense of the parties nor proportionate to the needs
of the case, as evidenced by its references to the Antitrust Tranche complaint.
Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding Topic No. 16.
21
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 23 of
54
Topic No. 17.
All Robinhood’s communications with Citadel on January 27, 2021, including
but not limited to those referenced in the HFSC Report at 47-51, e.g., the 8 p.m. call between
Robinhood and Citadel referenced in the HFSC Report at 50-51, and including but not limited
to, the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 17.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., fact depositions or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 55. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to seeking the
“location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding Topic
No. 17.
Topic No. 18.
The importance to Robinhood’s financial performance, liquidity and financial
condition of PFOF during the Relevant Period, including the percentage of its revenues that
PFOF and in particular PFOF from Citadel had to its financial performance, liquidity and
financial condition.
Response to Topic No. 18.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic
such as “importance,” “financial performance,” “liquidity” and “financial condition.” are vague
and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed
facts or purports to characterize facts including “[t]he importance to Robinhood . . . of PFOF.”
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that PFOF is not relevant to Plaintiffs’
allegations, which Defendants noted at the meet and confer on December 15, 2022.
Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding Topic No. 18.
22
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 24 of
54
Topic No. 19.
Robinhood’s liquidity position and financial condition during the Relevant
Period, as it related to its ability to meet its collateral and deposit requirements with all of its
regulators during that time period, including but not limited to, the location and identification of
all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 19.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
burdensome as to “the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “liquidity
position” and “financial condition” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 19.
Topic No. 20.
Robinhood’s communications with the NSCC and DTCC during the Meme
Stock Market Event, including but not limited to, the location and identification of all such
communications and all Documents memorializing both any part of the interactions with the
NSCC and DTCC, as well as Robinhood’s strategy in its dealings with the NSCC and DTCC,
and Documents gathered in response to requests by the NSCC and DTCC.
Response to Topic No. 20.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 9-15, 17. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it would be premature to offer 30(b)(6) testimony
on this Topic, as Defendants are waiting on an agreement on search terms to begin their review.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “strategy”
23
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 25 of
54
and “dealings with” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and identification of all
such communications and all Documents.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it seeks information that would require an impossible, impracticable, or
unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of information to permit any witness or
group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 20.
Topic No. 21.
Robinhood’s ability or inability to meet the collateral and deposit requirements of
the NSCC/DTCC during the Meme Stock Market Event, including the necessity of a capital
infusion to meet such requirements, and including but not limited to, the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic, e.g., cash or liquidity projections, bank
records, financial statements, fundraising efforts, and responses to requests made by the NSCC
and DTCC.
Response to Topic No. 21.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 12 and 38. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it would be premature to offer 30(b)(6) testimony
on this Topic, as Defendants are waiting on an agreement on search terms to begin their review.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “necessity
of a capital infusion” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “cash or liquidity projects, bank
records, financial statements, fundraising efforts, and responses to requests.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 21.
24
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 26 of
54
Topic No. 22.
The bases for CEO Vlad Tenev’s statement that Robinhood would have
continued to allow unrestricted trading in the Later Affected Stocks during the Restrictions
Period had Robinhood been more adequately capitalized as stated by CEO Tenev to Mark
Portnoy and others.
Response to Topic No. 22.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., a fact deposition of the individual
who made the relevant statement). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it
purports to characterize statements made in the referenced interview. Defendants further object
to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “others” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it discusses an interview with “Mark
Portnoy”; Defendants understand the referenced interview to have been with David Portnoy.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 22.
Topic No. 23.
The reasons why Robinhood did not disclose to the market during the Restrictions
period the complete detailed set of reasons for imposing, lifting and reimposing Restrictions,
including that it did not have adequate capitalization or liquidity to meet the collateral and
deposit requirements of the NSCC/DTCC on January 28, 2021, and that had it not maintained
the Restrictions during the Restrictions Period it might not have had adequate capitalization or
liquidity to meet the collateral and deposit requirements of the NSCC/DTCC during the entirety
of the Restrictions Period.
Response to Topic No. 23.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“adequate capitalization or liquidity” and “complete detailed set of reasons” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed
facts or purports to characterize facts including that Defendants “did not disclose to the market
during the Restrictions period the complete detailed set of reasons for imposing, lifting and
25
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 27 of
54
reimposing Restrictions” or “did not have adequate capitalization or liquidity to meet the
collateral and deposit requirements of the NSCC/DTCC on January 28, 2021” and that had
Defendants “not maintained the Restrictions during the Restrictions Period [they] might not
have had adequate capitalization or liquidity to meet the collateral and deposit requirements of
the NSCC/DTCC during the entirety of the Restrictions Period.” Defendants further object to
this Topic to the extent it calls for testimony about a hypothetical. Defendants further object to
this Topic on the grounds that it calls for improper 30(b)(6) testimony on legal theories,
contentions or conclusions.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 23.
Topic No. 24.
The reasons why Robinhood did not announce publicly (i) the date when
Robinhood intended to fully remove the Restrictions, and (ii) the contingencies affecting when
it would fully remove the Restrictions.
Response to Topic No. 24.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or fact depositions).
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 30 and 31. Defendants further object to
this Topic on the grounds that it would be premature to offer 30(b)(6) testimony on this Topic,
as Defendants are waiting on an agreement on search terms to begin their review. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “reasons why” and
“contingencies” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize facts, including that
Defendants did not contemporaneously announce when they intended to ease or remove
restrictions or the factors impacting when they would do so.
26
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 28 of
54
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 24.
Topic No. 25.
Robinhood’s belief as to whether the Alleged Omissions and Half-Truths were in
fact disclosed and if so the basis for any such belief.
Response to Topic No. 25.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories). Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’
Request for Production No. 26. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms
in this Topic such as “Alleged Omissions and Half-Truths” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it calls for legal conclusions as to
Defendants’ beliefs. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes
disputed facts or purports to characterize facts, including that Defendants had any such belief.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it calls for improper 30(b)(6)
testimony on legal theories, contentions or conclusions.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 25.
Topic No. 26.
Robinhood’s belief as to whether the Alleged Omissions and Half-Truths during
the Restrictions Period: (1) caused or contributed to decreased demand for the purchase of the
Affected Stocks, (3) caused or contributed to decreased demand for the Affected Stocks, which
in turn caused a decrease in the share prices of the Affected Stock, (4) caused or contributed to a
sell-off for the Affected Stocks that detrimentally affected the prices of the Affected Stocks or
(3) caused or contributed to damages to Robinhood customers and other investors with positions
in the Affected Stocks who sold shares of the Affected Stocks during the Class Period, and (4)
the bases for any such beliefs.
Response to Topic No. 26.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more easily
27
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 29 of
54
available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories). Defendants further object
to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “Alleged Omissions and Half-Truths,”
“sell-off” and “damages to Robinhood customers” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it is the subject of expert testimony. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize facts,
including that there was a decrease in demand for Affected Stocks, that there was a decrease in
the share prices of the Affected Stocks, that there was a “sell-off” in the Affected Stocks and that
Robinhood customers and other investors experienced damages. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it calls for improper 30(b)(6) testimony on legal theories, contentions
or conclusions.
Topic No. 27.
Robinhood’s beliefs or positions as to whether during the Restrictions Period the
Alleged Omissions and Half-Truths had an effect on: (i) Robinhood customers, (ii) investors with
positions in the Affected Stocks, or (iii) the prices of the Affected Stocks, and the bases for any of
Robinhood’s beliefs or positions related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 27.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories). Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “beliefs or positions” and
“investors with positions in the Affected Stocks” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it is the subject of expert testimony. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize
facts, including that Defendants had such beliefs or positions and that any Alleged Omissions
and Half-Truths could have the effect claimed. Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it calls for improper 30(b)(6) testimony on legal theories, contentions or
28
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 30 of
54
conclusions.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding subsections (i) and
(ii) of Topic No. 27.
Topic No. 28.
Robinhood’s awareness of, and methods for, its internal calculations of its deposit
and collateral requirements owed to the NSCC and DTCC during the Relevant Period, including
but not limited to VaR and ECP charges, and including the location and identification of all
Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 28.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 13, 14 and 18. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it would be premature to offer 30(b)(6) testimony
on this Topic, as Defendants are waiting on an agreement on search terms to begin their review.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“awareness” and “internal calculation” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to
this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to seeking “the location
and identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 28.
Topic No. 29.
The specific amounts for Robinhood’s collateral deposit and capital charges
associated with each of the restricted stocks during each day of the Relevant Period and how
those compared to other stocks that were heavily bought on Robinhood at the same time and the
reasons and calculations therefore including but not limited to, the location and identification of
all Documents related to this topic.
29
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 31 of
54
Response to Topic No. 29.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 2, dated May 10, 2023. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “collateral deposit and
capital charges,” “how those compared to other stocks,” “heavily bought on Robinhood at the
same time” and “the reasons and calculations therefore” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad for failing to specify the relevant
time “during each day of the Relevant Period” and unduly burdensome as to “the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic.” Defendants further object to this Topic on
the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize facts, including that the
“restricted stocks” are different from “other stocks that were heavily bought.” Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information that would require an
impossible, impracticable, or unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of
information to permit any witness or group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
Defendants are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding Topic No. 29.
Topic No. 30.
The day and time Robinhood first discovered the potential for a liquidity problem
during the Relevant Period, and how it discovered it, including but not limited to, the location
and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 30.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories, fact depositions or
document requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this
30
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 32 of
54
Topic such as “discovered ” and “the potential for a liquidity problem” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts
or purports to characterize facts, including that Defendants “discovered the potential for a
liquidity problem” and that Defendants had any such potential liquidity problem. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the
location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 30.
Topic No. 31.
The liquidity problem that Robinhood experienced during the Restriction Period,
such as that referenced in the HFSC Report at 24, 30, 31, 54, 55, 61, 66, 68 and 69, including but
not limited to, the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 31.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative
or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 49. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it would be premature to offer 30(b)(6) testimony on this Topic, as
Defendants are waiting on an agreement on search terms to begin their review. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to
characterize facts, including that Defendants experienced a liquidity problem. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds to the extent Plaintiffs seek information regarding a
third party’s characterization of relevant events.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 31.
Topic No. 32.
Robinhood’s belief that it would not be shut down or forced to liquidate its
customers’ positions by the NSCC/DTCC because it was “to[o] big to fail,” as referenced in the
HFSC Report at 65 (citing RH_HFSC_00007111), including but not limited to the location and
identification of all documents related to this topic.
31
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 33 of
54
Response to Topic No. 32.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., a fact deposition of the individual
who made the relevant statement). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it
is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 50.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “shut
down or forced to liquidate” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic
on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize facts, including that
Robinhood “would not be shut down or forced to liquidate its customers’ positions.” Defendants
further object to the Topic on the grounds that it improperly characterizes the source document.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it calls for improper 30(b)(6)
testimony on legal theories, contentions or conclusions. Defendants further object to this Topic
to the extent it seeks personal mental impressions or personal knowledge and not Defendants’
position, beliefs and opinions or facts within the knowledge of the corporation.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 32.
Topic No. 33.
Robinhood’s predictions for its customers’ daily demand (i.e. likely purchase and
sale quantities) for the Affected Stocks in the two weeks prior to, and during, the Restrictions
Period, including but not limited to, the location and identification of all Documents related to
this topic.
Response to Topic No. 33.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such
as “Robinhood’s predictions,” “likely purchase and sale quantities” and “Restrictions Period” are
vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad
and unduly burdensome as to seeking information “in the two weeks prior to . . . the Restrictions
32
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 34 of
54
Period” and as to “the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports
to characterize facts, including that Defendants has “predictions for its customers’ daily demand.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 33.
Topic No. 34.
Robinhood’s view that Robinhood’s systems were having trouble handling the
volume of trades on its platform, e.g., “handling scale,” such as those referenced in the HFSC
Report at pp. 23-25, 31, 36 and 57, and reasons why, including but not limited to the location
and identification of all documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 34.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., document requests). Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of
Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 51. Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it would be premature to offer 30(b)(6) testimony on this Topic, as Defendants are
waiting on an agreement on search terms to begin their review. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “Robinhood’s view,” “Robinhood’s
systems,” “trouble handling the volume of trades,” “handling scale” and “reasons why” are
vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes
disputed facts or purports to characterize facts, including the “view that Robinhood’s systems
were having trouble.” Defendants further object to this Topic to the extent it seeks personal
mental impressions or personal knowledge and not Defendants’ position, beliefs and opinions or
facts within the knowledge of the corporation.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 34.
33
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 35 of
54
Topic No. 35.
Robinhood’s awareness that imposing Restrictions on the Affected Stocks could
cause a decline in the market price of the Affected Stocks, including but not limited to that
referenced in the HFSC Report at 31 (citing RH_HFSC_00029118) (“us PCO will trigger a
crash, I am certain”), including but not limited to the location and identification of all
Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 35.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., a fact deposition of the individual
who made the relevant statement). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it
is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 48.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“awareness” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds
that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to seeking information related to Defendants’
“awareness . . . including but not limited to that referenced in the HFSC Report” and as to “the
location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.” Defendants further object to
this Topic to the extent it seeks personal mental impressions or personal knowledge and not
Defendants’ position, beliefs and opinions or facts within the knowledge of the corporation.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds to the extent Plaintiffs seek information
regarding a third party’s characterization of relevant events. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize facts, including
that “Restrictions on the Affected Stocks could cause a decline in the market price of the
Affected Stocks” and that Defendants were aware of the same. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it calls for improper 30(b)(6) testimony on legal theories, contentions
or conclusions.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 35.
34
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 36 of
54
Topic No. 36.
Robinhood’s consideration of, and its decision to, limit in any way the number or
pace of new account sign-ups during the Relevant Period, and the reasons therefor such as those
referenced in the HFSC Report at 31, 56, and 58, including but not limited to the location and
identification of all documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 36.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories, fact depositions or
document requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 32.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “new
account sign-ups” and “consideration of, and its decision to” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendants will construe the term “new account sign-ups” to mean new accounts opened in the
prior 24 hours during the Relevant Period. Defendants further object to this Topic to the extent
Plaintiffs seek information regarding a third party’s characterization of relevant events.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports
to characterize facts, including that Defendants considered and decided to “limit in any way the
number or pace of new account sign-ups.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to the discussion of “limit[ing] in any
way the number or pace of new account sign-ups” and as to “the location and identification of all
Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 36.
Topic No. 37.
The number of total Robinhood accounts, daily new Robinhood account sign-ups,
and the total dollar amount held in Robinhood accounts on a daily basis during the Relevant
Period, including but not limited to the location and identification of all Documents related to
this topic.
35
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 37 of
54
Response to Topic No. 37.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 33-35. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “new account sign-ups” are
vague and ambiguous. Defendants will construe the term “new account sign-ups” to mean new
accounts opened in the prior 24 hours during the Relevant Period. Defendants further object to
this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic.” Defendants further object to this Topic on
the grounds that it seeks information that would require an impossible, impracticable, or
unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of information to permit any witness or
group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
Defendants are willing to provide a response to an interrogatory seeking this
information.
Topic No. 38.
The volume and type of trading (buys, sells, options, stocks) in the Affected
Stocks by new accounts in the period, including but not limited to the location and identification
of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 38.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 34-35. Defendants further
36
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 38 of
54
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “new accounts in the period”
are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is
overbroad and unduly burdensome as to the lack of a time limitation because the term “the
period” is vague and as to “the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information that would
require an impossible, impracticable, or unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of
information to permit any witness or group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
Defendants are willing to provide a response to an interrogatory seeking this
information.
Topic No. 39.
The amount and the changes in total daily volume of trading in Robinhood
accounts in the stock and options of the Affected Stocks during the Relevant Period, including
but not limited to, the location and identification of Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 39.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 34-35 and Plaintiffs’
Interrogatory No. 1. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad
and unduly burdensome as to “the location and identification of all Documents related to this
topic.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information that
would require an impossible, impracticable, or unreasonable amount of preparation or
memorization of information to permit any witness or group of witnesses to be able to address
comprehensively.
Defendants are willing to provide a response to an interrogatory seeking this
37
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 39 of
54
information.
Topic No. 40.
Robinhood’s efforts to raise capital from investors or any other source of funding
during the Relevant Period, including but not limited to the reasons for Robinhood raising
capital, the search for and identification of investors, negotiations, and Robinhood’s
representations of the reasons for the capital infusion, and the terms and nature of the
transactions by which Robinhood raised additional capital during the Relevant Period, including
but not limited to the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 40.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories, fact depositions or
document requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 38.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “efforts to
raise capital” and “any other source of funding” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to covering all
potential aspects of fundraising and for seeking “the location and identification of all Documents
related to this topic.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks
information neither relevant to the claims or defense of the parties nor proportionate to the needs
of the case, including “the search for and identification of investors[ and] negotiations.”
Defendants further object to this Notice to the extent it seeks information protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-produce doctrine or any other applicable
privileges or immunities.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 40.
Topic No. 41.
The impact of the Meme Stock Market Event on Robinhood’s efforts to pursue
and complete an initial public offering, including but not limited to the location and
38
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 40 of
54
identification of all documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 41.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“impact” and “efforts to pursue and complete an initial public offering” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts
or purports to characterize facts, including that the Meme Stock Market Event impacted
Defendants’ IPO efforts. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it does not
specify the information sought with reasonable particularity. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 41.
Topic No. 42.
Robinhood’s insurance policies covering (i) securities fraud claims, and (ii) errors
and omissions, including but not limited to the location and identification of all Documents
related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 42.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 70, in response to which
Defendants have answered Plaintiffs’ questions at the meet and confer on December 15, 2022
and in their January 5, 2023 letter. Defendants repeat that there is no litigation insurance.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “errors”
are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is
overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and identification of all Documents related
39
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 41 of
54
to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 42.
Topic No. 43.
Robinhood’s policies governing its employees’ trading of stocks and options
during the Relevant Period, including but not limited to the location and identification of all
Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 43.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“policies governing” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 43.
Topic No. 44.
How Robinhood uses Workday, its human resources management system,
including its capabilities, the information available on it, and what types of information related
to individual custodians and key employees are available on it.
Response to Topic No. 44.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“types of information,” “key employees” and “capabilities” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
burdensome as to “information available” on Workday with no restriction. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to the claims or
defense of the parties nor proportionate to the needs of the case, including Defendants “human
resources management system.” Defendants previously informed Plaintiffs in their March 1,
2023 letter that Defendants do not use Workday to track workflow process or make individual
work assignments.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 44.
40
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 42 of
54
Topic No. 45.
The trading Restrictions Robinhood imposed during the Meme Stock Market
Event. In particular:
(a) a description Looker’s capabilities;
(b) a description of Looker’s functions;
(c) The tasks Robinhood uses Looker to perform;
(d) how Robinhood uses Looker in its business;
(e) The type of data does Robinhood use Looker to analyze;
(f) The type of data analyses Looker performs for Robinhood; and;
(g) The final product or output Looker produces;
(h) Whether and how Looker allows Robinhood to access its data lake;
(i) Whether and how Looker can be used to create, identify or obtain any of the
documents Plaintiffs have requested from Robinhood in their various First Set of
Requests for Production.
Response to Topic No. 45.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories). Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “capabilities,” “functions,”
“type of data,” “use” and “the final product or output Looker produces” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information
neither relevant to the claims or defense of the parties nor proportionate to the needs of the case,
including Defendants’ internal “data analytics platform.” Defendants previously informed
Plaintiffs in their March 1, 2023 letter that Looker can be programmed with Structured Query
Language (“SQL”) queries and submits them against databases and that Looker is capable of
generating reports. Defendants further object to this Topic to the extent subsection (i) suggests
Defendants are under any obligation to generate documents or information that does not already
exist in Defendants’ custody or control to satisfy Plaintiffs’ document requests. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to
evaluating how Looker could be “used” in connection with Plaintiffs’ 88 document requests.
41
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 43 of
54
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information that would
require an impossible, impracticable, or unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of
information to permit any witness or group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 45.
Topic No. 46.
The nature, purpose, participants, dates, times, and outcome(s) of the scaling
meeting(s) described in RHMDL0049839, including but not limited to the location and
identification of all other Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 46.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories, document requests
or a fact deposition of the individual who made the relevant statement). Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “nature,” “purpose” and
“outcome” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds
that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and identification of all
Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 46.
Topic No. 47.
The existence, nature and use of any algorithm or optimization program
(“Algorithm”) Robinhood used to identify the stocks that are driving the greatest fees as
referenced in RHMDL 0072580, including but not limited to: (i) when it was developed; (ii)
when Robinhood first started using it; (iii) whether Robinhood used it during the Relevant
Period; (iv) the reasons it was developed; (v) the uses it was put to; (vi) the identify of all
persons at Robinhood that analyzed the output of the Algorithm; (vii) the decisions the
Algorithm supported; (viii) the decisions the Algorithm affected; (ix) the Identity of all persons
at Robinhood that used any aspect of the Algorithm to make decisions during the Relevant
Period; (x) the identity and location of all documents that relate to this topic.
42
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 44 of
54
Response to Topic No. 47.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories, document requests
or a fact deposition of the individual who made the relevant statement). Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “existence, nature and use,”
“any algorithm or optimization program,” “driving the greatest fees,” “decisions the Algorithm
supported,” “affected” and “used any aspect of the Algorithm” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
burdensome as to the “identif[ication] of all persons . . . that used any aspect of the Algorithm.”
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports
to characterize facts, including that any such algorithm exists as described. Defendants further
object to the Topic on the grounds that it improperly characterizes facts and the source
document. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome as to “the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 47.
Topic No. 48.
The process Robinhood undertook to monitor Reddit, WallStreetBets, StockTwits
or other social media channels for potential increases in demand for specific stocks, which
stocks it monitored and identified, and in what channels during the Relevant Period, including
but not limited to which stocks it monitored, the reasons therefore, how it selected such stocks to
monitor, and how Robinhood used the information found on these social media channels to
determine in which stocks to consider restricting. The location and identification of all
Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 48.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“monitor,” “potential increases in demand for specific stocks” and “other social media channels”
are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes
43
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 45 of
54
disputed facts or purports to characterize facts, including that Defendants monitored social
media, that Defendants monitored for increases in demand of certain stocks and that Defendants
“used the information found on these social media channels to determine in which stocks to
consider restricting.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad
and unduly burdensome as to “the location and identification of all Documents related to this
topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 48.
Topic No. 49.
The nature, extent and methods by which Robinhood engaged in advertising or
postings of any kind on social media linked to WallStreetBets or other social media channels to
induce traders to open accounts on Robinhood during or prior to the Class Period. The location
and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 49.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“nature, extent and methods,” “advertising or postings of any kind,” “social media linked to
WallStreetBets” and “other social media channels” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants
further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to
“postings of any kind.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it
characterizes “advertising or postings” as “induc[ing] traders to open accounts on Robinhood.”
Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports
to characterize facts, including that Defendants advertised or posted on social media and that
Defendants attempted to induce traders to open Robinhood accounts. Defendants further object
to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 49.
44
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 46 of
54
Topic No. 50.
When, why and the methods by which Robinhood removed their advertising or
other postings at any time during or prior to the class period. The location and identification of
all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 50.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“methods,” “advertising or other postings” and “prior to the class period” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts
or purports to characterize facts, including that Defendants advertised or posted on social media
and that Defendants removed any advertising or postings. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 50.
Topic No. 51.
Whether Robinhood possessed any internal company estimates of the impact of
changes in Robinhood customer demand for certain stocks on those stocks’ prices and what
these estimates were for the nine Affected Stocks during the Relevant Period. If so, the amount
and other specifics of these estimates each day and what were the bases for the estimates. The
location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 51.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Topic 10(h). Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that terms in this Topic such as “internal company estimates of the impact of
changes,” “Robinhood customer demand for certain stocks” and “amount and other specifics
of these estimates” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the
45
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 47 of
54
grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and identification of all
Documents related to this topic.”
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 51.
Topic No. 52.
Robinhood’s beliefs, including any discussions, as to whether a decrease in
demand to purchase any of the nine Affected Stocks or an increase in selling pressure for the
nine Affected Stocks would lead to lower share prices for such stocks during the Relevant
Period.
Response to Topic No. 52.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Topic 10(h). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds
that terms in this Topic such as “beliefs,” “any discussions” and “selling pressure” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is the subject of expert
testimony. Defendants further object to this Topic to the extent it calls for testimony about a
hypothetical. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome as to “any discussions.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the
grounds that it calls for improper 30(b)(6) testimony on legal theories, contentions or
conclusions.
Topic No. 53.
The number of in the money options that Robinhood closed out early from
January 27 to February 4, 2021, including but not limited to the location and identity of
relevant documents and including a thorough explanation of the meaning, source and
completeness of RHMDL00004341 and RHMDL00004343.
46
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 48 of
54
Response to Topic No. 53
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 19-23. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “thorough explanation” and
“afforded an opportunity” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on
the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and identity of relevant
documents and including a thorough explanation of the meaning, source and completeness.”
Defendants are willing to provide a response to an interrogatory seeking this
information.
Topic No. 54.
Robinhood’s policies for selling out or liquidating positions based on margin calls
during the Relevant Period, including any changes in such policies and the reasons for such
changes including but not limited to the location and identification of all other documents related
to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 54.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that information about
“changes in such policies” is not limited to a particular timeframe.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 54.
Topic No. 55.
The identity of customers who were and were not given notice of margin calls
from January 27, 2021 to February 5, 2021 for the nine Affected Stocks and whether they were
afforded an opportunity to meet such margin calls and the notice and time provided and whether
47
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 49 of
54
the notice and time provided for the nine Affected Stocks differed from margin calls for other
stocks, including but not limited to the location and identification of all other Documents related
to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 55.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“notice” and “afforded an opportunity” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to
this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic.” Defendants further object to this Topic on
the grounds that it seeks personally identifiable information (“PII”). Defendants further object
to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information that would require an impossible,
impracticable, or unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of information to permit
any witness or group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it assumes disputed facts or purports to characterize
facts, including that Defendants did not provide notice to certain customers regarding margin
calls.
Topic No. 56.
All rules and requirements that Robinhood had for customers seeking to move
their assets from Robinhood to other brokerage firms from January 27, 2021 to February 5, 2021,
including but not limited to the existence or non-existence of any rules that customers must sell
their securities before moving their assets to a new brokerage account, and including but not
limited to the location and identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 56.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as
“rules” and “requirements” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this Topic on
the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “the location and identification of
48
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 50 of
54
all Documents related to this topic” and to the extent Plaintiffs seek proof of the “non-existence
of any rules.” Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it calls for improper
30(b)(6) testimony on legal theories, contentions or conclusions concerning regulatory
requirements. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information
that would require an impossible, impracticable, or unreasonable amount of preparation or
memorization of information to permit any witness or group of witnesses to be able to address
comprehensively.
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 56.
Topic No. 57.
The nature and extent of any proceedings, suits, investigations, regulatory actions
of any nature, and enforcement proceedings commenced against Robinhood that are in any way
related to the Meme Stock Market Event, including but not limited to, the location and
identification of all Documents related to this topic.
Response to Topic No. 57.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories). Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’
Request for Production Nos. 4-6. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it
is overbroad and unduly burdensome as to “in any way related to the Meme Stock Market
Event,” “regulatory actions of any nature” and “any proceeding.” Defendants further object to
this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information neither relevant to the claims or defense of
the parties nor proportionate to the needs of the case; Plaintiffs do not articulate how other
actions or proceedings are relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties in this Action.
Defendants further object to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-produce doctrine or any other applicable
49
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 51 of
54
privileges or immunities.
Defendants are willing to provide a response to an interrogatory seeking this
information.
Topic No. 58.
Robinhood’s organizational structure and the management structure of the
Company’s business functions, for each of the entities that are Robinhood in this Action during
the Relevant Period, including the names of the heads of relevant departments and their
reporting structure and the financial and reporting interaction and interrelationships between and
amongst the Robinhood’s parent holding company and its subsidiaries, including whether
officers of one entity are officers or others and whether officers of one entity that are not officers
of another entity are allowed to give orders to employees of entities for which such officer does
not work.
Response to Topic No. 58.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information more
easily available through other, less burdensome means (e.g., interrogatories or document
requests). Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 8. Defendants further object
to this Topic on the grounds that terms in this Topic such as “business functions,” “relevant
departments” and “give orders” are vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to this
Topic on the grounds that it fails to describe the information sought with reasonable particularity
such that Defendants could prepare a witness to testify about the entire organizational and
management structure. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks
information neither relevant to the claims or defense of the parties nor proportionate to the needs
of the case, as to Defendants’ organizational and management structure. Defendants further
object to this Topic on the grounds that it seeks information that would require an impossible,
impracticable, or unreasonable amount of preparation or memorization of information to permit
any witness or group of witnesses to be able to address comprehensively.
50
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 52 of
54
Defendants agree to designate a witness to testify regarding Topic No. 58.
Topic No. 59.
The identities, by job title or description and the specific roles and
responsibilities, of any persons who were responsible for or may possess information concerning
any of the topics in the preceding paragraphs.
Response to Topic No. 59.
Defendants object to this Topic on the grounds that it is an impermissible catch-
all topic. Defendants further object to this Topic on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly
burdensome to the extent it requires Defendants to identify all individuals who “may possess
information concerning any of” the 58 preceding Topics.
51
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 53 of
54
Dated: June 2, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Antony Ryan
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Antony L. Ryan
Kevin J. Orsini
Brittany L. Sukiennik
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
aryan@cravath.com
korsini@cravath.com
bsukiennik@cravath.com
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
Samuel A. Danon (FBN 892671)
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
mcastellanos@HuntonAK.com
Attorneys for Robinhood Robinhood Markets, Inc.,
Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood
Securities, LLC
52
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 586-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2023 Page 54 of
54
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 2, 2023, I caused copies of the foregoing Responses and
Objections to Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics to be served via electronic mail on the
following parties:
Laurence M. Rosen
Robin Bronzaft Howald
Michael A. Cohen
Phillip C. Kim
Jon Stern
Brent J. LaPointe
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
rhowald@rosenlegal.com
mcohen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
jstern@rosenlegal.com
blapointe@rosenlegal.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Kathleen Young
Kathleen Young
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.586.4.pdf
- Size
- 394,943 bytes
- SHA-256
- 635041f4a79eabff1a962e2c56e4230fa8034d997f8646c249de598576b5c4da
- Original
- archive.org