EFG BANK AG, CAYMAN BRANCH et al v. THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 2:2017cv02592 - Document 104 (E.D. Pa. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER THAT THE COURT ADOPTS THE OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER REGARDING THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE AS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES IN THEIR JOINT SUBMISSION OF FEBRUARY 8, 2019 (AS AMENDED ON FEBRUARY 11, 2019) (17-2592, ECF NO. 77; 16-6605, ECF NO. 121), AND OVERRULES THE OBJECTIONS THERETO, (17-2592, ECF NO. 79; 16-6605, ECF NO. 126). THE COURT ADOPTS THE OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER REGARDING THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE AS CONCERNING THE CONESTOGA PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR A RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF DEFEND ANTS, (16-6605, ECF NO. 125; 18-02379, ECF NO. 32) AND OVERRULES THE OBJECTIONS THERETO, (16-6605, ECF NO. 132; 18-02379, ECF NO. 33). THE COURT ADOPTS THE OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER REGARDING THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RELATING TO THE TABLE SHAVE AND EXCHANGE PROGRAMS, (16-6605, ECF NO. 129; 17-2592, ECF NO. 81). THE COURT ADOPTS THE OPINION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONCERNING THE RELEVANCY AND BURDEN OF PRODUCING THREE CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS, AS JOINTLY SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES ON MAY 16, 2019, (16-6605, ECF NO. 134; 17-2592, ECF NO. 86). THE MOTIONS TO SEAL, (17-2592, ECF NOS. 83, 91, 92, 94 AND 95), ARE GRANTED. THE MOTIONS TO ADOPT THE SPECIAL MASTERS OPINIONS, (17-2592, ECF NO. 82), (17-2592, ECF NO. 90), AND (18-02379, ECF NO. 35) AND ARE DENIED AS MOOT. ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 8/21/19. 8/21/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(va, )
Download PDF
EFG BANK AG, CAYMAN BRANCH et al v. THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 104 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: LINCOLN NATIONAL COI LITIGATION __________________________________________ EFG BANK AG, CAYMAN BRANCH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. __________________________________________ CONESTOGA TRUST, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 16-cv-06605-GJP No.: 17-cv-02592-GJP No.: 18-cv-02379-GJP ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2019, upon consideration of the Special Masters’ Opinions and the objections and responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Opinion of the Special Master Regarding the Discovery Dispute as Presented by the Parties in their Joint Submission of 1 Dockets.Justia.com February 8, 2019 (as Amended on February 11, 2019) (17-2592, ECF No. 77; 16-6605, ECF No. 121), and OVERRULES the objections thereto, (17-2592, ECF No. 79; 16-6605, ECF No. 126). 2. The Court ADOPTS the Opinion of the Special Master regarding the Discovery Dispute as Concerning the Conestoga Plaintiffs’ Request for a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendants, (16-6605, ECF No. 125; 18-02379, ECF No. 32) and OVERRULES the objections thereto, (16-6605, ECF No. 132; 1802379, ECF No. 33). 3. The Court ADOPTS the Opinion of the Special Master Regarding the Discovery Dispute Relating to the “Table Shave” and “Exchange Programs”, (16-6605, ECF No. 129; 17-2592, ECF No. 81). 4. The Court ADOPTS the Opinion of the Special Master Regarding Discovery Dispute Concerning the Relevancy and Burden of Producing Three Categories of Documents, as Jointly Submitted by the Parties on May 16, 2019, (16-6605, ECF No. 134; 17-2592, ECF No. 86). 5. The Motions to Seal, (17-2592, ECF Nos. 83, 91, 92, 94 and 95), are GRANTED.1 6. The Motions to Adopt the Special Master’s Opinions, (17-2592, ECF No. 82), (17-2592, ECF No. 90), and (18-02379, ECF No. 35) and are DENIED as moot. The parties need not file “Motions to Adopt” the Special Master’s As the Court has previously reminded the parties, just because materials have been designated confidential does not mean that the Court will order filings containing such information placed under seal; the parties must prove why the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption of public access. See Section II.C.3. of the Court’s Policies and Procedures. The parties have shown that the interest in secrecy here, at least for now, outweighs the presumption of public access in their Motions and related declarations. 1 2 opinion in the future and the Court will not consider such motions. The Court will review the Special Master’s opinions as is required under Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gerald J. Pappert GERALD J. PAPPERT, J. 3