Former FX trader wants Citi to comply with document discovery obligations
Several days after Citi accused its former employee Rohan Ramchandani of belatedly manufacturing discovery disputes, the Forex trader has addressed the Court in a letter asking for an order directing the bank to comply with its discovery obligations.
Ramchandani is suing Citi for malicious prosecution stemming, among other things, from Citi’s disclosure of information about Ramchandani to, and other communications with, the DOJ in connection with an investigation into a purported criminal antitrust conspiracy arising out of Ramchandani’s role as trader in FX spot markets, and specifically the EUR/USD FX Spot market, on behalf of Citi.
As detailed in the Complaint, Ramchandani alleges, among other things, that:
- Citi made materially misleading statements regarding Ramchandani, and provided materially misleading accounts of Ramchandani’s conduct, to the DOJ, which played an actionable role in the commencement of the DOJ’s putative criminal case against Ramchandani;
- Citi knew that the statements and accounts it provided were materially misleading and that Ramchandani had not engaged in criminal antitrust violations; and
- Citi acted with malice, within the meaning of governing law. Including by falsely identifying Ramchandani (whom Citi knew was not culpable for a criminal antitrust violation) as the single purported wrongdoer within Citi, thereby, among other things, diverting attention from other actually culpable conduct within Citi.
In a letter filed with the New York Southern District Court on March 21, 2022, Ramchandani says Citi does not meaningfully challenge his demonstration of the material deficiencies in its production, which concern matters falling within the heart of the parties’ dispute. He argues that Citi fails to identify even a single document in its production concerning the facts and circumstances underlying Citi’s suspension and firing of Mr. Ramchandani. In a recent document production, Citi simply reproduced documents from a prior UK litigation during which Citi failed to produce those materials.
Citi offers no explanation for its refusal to produce communications with several regulatory and law enforcement agencies that conducted major investigations of the FX Spot markets, including investigations that involved Ramchandani, as well as other individuals whose alleged misconduct Plaintiff has adequately alleged Citi may have attempted to divert attention from as part of the alleged scapegoating scheme.
Notably, Citi has refused even to produce communications regarding FX Spot market activities with the SEC, which, as alleged in the Complaint, was a prime object of Citi’s scapegoating scheme.
Finally, Citi admits that it refused to perform term searches of all relevant ESI for no less than nine demonstrably relevant custodians, including custodians who were highly involved in, or ultimately responsible for, some of the actions that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute, including (i) the suspension and firing of Plaintiff, (ii) the alleged scheme to dirty him up in the press, (iii) Citi’s guilty plea (in connection with which Plaintiff was scapegoated); and (iv) Citi’s subsequent “cooperation” respecting Plaintiff and other potential FX Spot market wrongdoers.