Deutsche Bank, ex-trader warn of complicated discovery in malicious prosecution lawsuit
The lawsuit brought by derivatives trader Matthew Connolly against his former employer Deutsche Bank continues at the New York Southern District Court.
The trader seeks heavy compensation from his ex-employer over what he calls “the destruction of his life”.
In this action, Connolly asserts a claim against his former employer Deutsche Bank for malicious prosecution of a criminal case brought against him for alleged manipulation of Deutsche Bank’s LIBOR submissions.
Connolly alleges that Deutsche Bank steered the prosecution toward him by providing the government with false and misleading information (and omissions) both during the investigation—which the government effectively outsourced to Deutsche Bank—and during trial. Connolly claims that Deutsche Bank maliciously prosecuted him to deflect the government’s attention from its top executives. The Second Circuit exonerated Connolly of any wrongdoing.
Deutsche Bank maintains that plaintiff’s claim is meritless because, among other reasons, (1) the U.S. government, not defendant initiated plaintiff’s prosecution, (2) there was no lack of probable cause to believe plaintiff committed a crime at the time of his prosecution and conviction (the Second Circuit subsequently reversed the conviction based on its interpretation of the law), and (3) in any event, Deutsche Bank did not act with malice.
The Court filings dated November 30, 2023, indicate that the parties request an extended discovery schedule as the allegations on their face cover at least a seven-year period from 2005 to 2012, pertain to a sprawling, multi-jurisdictional government investigation that included a review of “158 million electronic documents . . . 850,000 audio files . . . nearly 200 interviews . . . and . . . hundreds of communications with the government,” involve materials that are, in many cases, more than a decade old, and could implicate information covered by the attorney client privilege, data protection statutes, among other things. All of this could make discovery more complicated and time intensive.
While it remains Deutsche Bank’s position that targeted and focused discovery is the most effective and efficient here, Deutsche Bank expects identifying, collecting, and producing potentially relevant information may require additional time.