Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc. et al
| Jay Alix |
| McKinsey & Co., Inc., McKinsey Holdings, Inc., McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S., LLC, Dominic Barton, Kevin Carmody, Jon Garcia, Seth Goldstrom, Alison Proshan and Robert Sternfels |
| 1:2018cv04141 |
| May 9, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
402
OPINION AND ORDER re: 300 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants Seth Goldstrom's and Kevin Carmody's Counterclaims. filed by Jay Alix, AlixPartners, LLP, 328 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Jon Garcia, Kevin Carmody, Ali son Proshan, Seth Goldstrom, Virginia Molino, Jared D. Yerian, Dominic Barton, Robert Sternfels, Mark Hojnacki, 332 MOTION to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 from Defendants. filed by McKinsey Recovery & Transfo rmation Services U.S., LLC, McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, McKinsey & Co., Inc. Accordingly, McKinsey's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and both the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss and Alix's and AlixPartners' motion to dismiss the counterclaims are deemed moot. (The parties' latest discovery disputes, see ECF Nos. 397 & 400, are also moot.) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 300, 328, 332, 397, 399, and 400; to enter judgment in favor of Defendants in accordance with this Opinion and Order; and to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/3/2024) (jca) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
391
ORDER denying 387 Letter Motion to Compel. Application DENIED. The Court acknowledges that the requested discovery is relevant within the broad meaning of that term, but agrees - in light of the alternative discovery that Alix and AlixPartners have provided or agreed to, see ECF Nos. 389 and 390 - that the requested discovery would be disproportionate to the needs of the case. That denial is without prejudice to a more targeted request for a subset of the requested materials. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 387. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/14/2024) (jca)
|
|
Filing
382
MEMO ENDORSED ORDER on re: 381 Response to Motion,, filed by Jon Garcia, Kevin Carmody, Alison Proshan, Seth Goldstrom, Virginia Molino, McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S., LLC, Jared D. Yerian, McKinsey & Company Inc. Un ited States, Dominic Barton, Robert Sternfels, McKinsey & Co., Inc., Mark Hojnacki denying 380 Letter Motion to Compel. ENDORSEMENT: Alix's letter-motion is DENIED, substantially for the reasons set forth above. First, in light of Mc Kinsey's representation that it will "promptly" provide responses to the MIO requests, the first issue is moot (or not ripe, as the case may be). Second, the Court agrees that Alix's interrogatories exceed the number permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) and declines to blessthe excess by retroactively granting leave to exceed the limit. Alix is granted leave to serve new interrogatories, subject to the limit in Rule 33(a), by May 13, 2024.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 380. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/6/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
379
ORDER temporarily granting 377 Letter Motion to Seal. Pursuant to the Court's Orders at ECF Nos. 374 & 375, the documents at issue will remain sealed temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep these documents sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 377.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/25/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
375
ORDER temporarily granting 366 Letter Motion to Seal. The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the documents at issue sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 366.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/19/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
363
ORDER granting in part 361 Letter Motion to Seal. Pursuant to the Court's Order at ECF No. 357, the documents at issue will remain sealed temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep these documents sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 361. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/15/2024) (jca)
|
|
Filing
360
ORDER denying 348 Letter Motion to Compel. Upon review of the parties' letters, the Court agrees with Alix and AlixPartners that the motion to compel should be denied because it seeks to compel AlixPartners to answer an interrogatory that i s more properly answered by Alix himself and because Alix has, in fact, properly provided the relevant information in response to the interrogatory served by other Defendants (subject, of course, to supplementation in the event that he comes into possession of additional information that is responsive to the interrogatory). See ECF Nos. 350 & 351. Accordingly, the letter-motion to compel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 348. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/12/2024) (tg)
|
|
Filing
357
ORDER temporarily granting 352 Letter Motion to Seal. The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the documents at issue sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 352. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/10/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
343
ORDER granting 342 Letter Motion to Seal. Pursuant to the Court's Order at ECF No. 340, the materials that are the subject of Alix and AlixPartners' letters, ECF Nos. 341 & 342, will remain sealed temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the documents at issue sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 342. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/25/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
323
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 321 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Reed Brodsky dated March 7, 2024. filed by AlixPartners, LLP, 318 LETTER MOTION to Seal / Maintain Redactions and Sealing< /i> addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Reed Brodsky dated March 5, 2024. filed by AlixPartners, LLP, 319 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Defendants dated March 6, 2024. filed by McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S., LLC, McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, McKinsey & Co., Inc. The Court concludes that some of the materials filed under seal (or in redacted form) must be unsealed. In particular, the materials that the Court had to, and did, review in order to resolve the parties discovery dispute must be unsealed, to wit as further set forth in this Opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to (1) terminate ECF Nos. 318, 319, and 321; and (2) unseal ECF Nos. 320 and 322 (i.e., to convert them to public view). Additionally, no later than March 11, 2024, the parties shall refile their joint letter and Exhibits A, B, D, and E thereto in conformity with the rulings above. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/8/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
314
ORDER temporarily granting 311 Letter Motion to Seal. The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the documents at issue sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying dispute. With respect to the discovery disputes raised by Defendants in the parties' joint letter, Alix and AlixPartners shall file any consolidated response, not to exceed three pages, no later than March 4, 2024, at 5 p.m. The parties should also be prepared to discuss the disputes at the March 5, 2024 pretrial conference. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 311. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/1/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
307
ORDER. Assuming arguendo that Mr. Shaheen himself even had a right to seek disqualification, he waived it. See ECF No. 298, at 8-9. For the foregoing reasons, the Court reaffirms its denial of Mr. Shaheen's motion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/13/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
306
ORDER. On January 17, 2024, Baraa Shaheen sought leave on behalf of himself and Balwara LLC to file a motion for sanctions and disqualification of Kobre & Kim LLP as counsel for Defendants in this action. ECF No. 287. By Order dated January 22, 20 24, the Court denied leave as to Balwara LLC because a corporate entity may appear in federal court only through admitted counsel and Shaheen is not a member of the Bar of this Court. ECF No. 290. The Court granted leave to Mr. Shaheen, however, a nd set a briefing schedule. See id. Kobre & Kim LLP timely opposed the motion. See ECF No. 298. Mr. Shaheen did not file any reply. Upon review of the submissions, Mr. Shaheen's motion is DENIED as frivolous, substantially for the reasons set forth in Kobre & Kim LLP's opposition. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/12/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
297
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material...This stipulation binds the parties to treat as confidential the documents so classified. This Court, however, has not review ed the documents referenced herein; therefore, by so ordering this stipulation, the Court makes no finding as to whether the documents are confidential. That finding will be made, if ever, upon a document-by-document review pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Court's Individual Rules and Practices and subject to the presumption in favor of public access to "judicial documents." See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). To that e nd, the Court does not "so order" any provision to the extent that it purports to authorize the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order. See New York ex rel. Khurana v. Spherion Corp., No. 15-CV-6605 (JMF), 2019 WL 3294170 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2019). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/31/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
290
ORDER, On January 17, 2024, Baraa Shaheen sought leave on behalf of himself and Balwara LLC to file a motion for sanctions and disqualification of Kobre & Kim LLP as counsel for Defendants in this action. ECF No. 287. Leave is denied as to Balwara LLC because a corporate entity may appear in federal court only through admitted counsel and Shaheen is not a member of the Bar of this Court. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 2007). However, leave is granted to Shaheen to proce ed pro se in his individual capacity. Any opposition to the motion, ECF No. 287, at 3-7, shall be filed no later than Friday, February 2, 2024. In any opposition, counsel should address whether Shaheen has any individual interest to assert with respect to the motion for sanctions and disqualification. Any reply shall be filed by Friday, February 9, 2024. SO ORDERED. ( Replies due by 2/9/2024., Responses due by 2/2/2024) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/22/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
271
MEMO ENDORSED ORDER on re: 270 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Seth Goldstrom denying 267 Letter Motion to Stay re: 267 LETTER MOTION to Stay all discovery from (or by) AlixPartners related to the counterclaim broug ht by Seth Goldstrom addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Reed Brodsky dated December 14, 2023. ENDORSEMENT: In view of the age of this case and the nature of the discovery that is underway, among other considerations, the application for a stay of discovery is DENIED. The Court intimates no view on the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 267. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/28/23) (yv)
|
|
Filing
254
ORDER, It is hereby ORDERED that Goldstrom shall file any amended counterclaim by December 5, 2023. Pursuant to Paragraph 1.B. of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furm an, any amended counterclaim should be filed with a redline showing all differences between the original and revised filing. Goldstrom will not be given any further opportunity to amend the counterclaim to address issues raised by the motion to dismi ss. If no amended counterclaim is filed, Goldstrom shall file any opposition to the motion to dismiss by December 5, 2023. Alix's reply, if any, shall be filed by December 12, 2023. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 12/5/2023., Replies due by 12/12/2023., Responses due by 12/5/2023) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/15/23) (yv)
|
|
Filing
246
ORDER: granting 245 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference; granting 245 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 245 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference request to adjourn the 10/11/23 initial conference. addressed to Judge Je sse M. Furman from Mark P. Goodman dated October 4, 2023. JOINT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Defendants and request to extend Plaintiff's time to answer counterclaims. addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Mark P. Go odman dated October 4, 2023. Application GRANTED. Defendants' answer deadline is extended to November 15, 2023; and Plaintiff's answer deadline is extended to November 22, 2023. In light of that, the initial pretrial conference is ADJOURNED to December 5, 2023, at 3 p.m. The pre-conference submissions are due by the Thursday prior to the conference. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 245. SO ORDERED. Dominic Barton answer due 11/15/2023; Kevin Carmody answer due 11/15/ 2023; Jon Garcia answer due 11/15/2023; Seth Goldstrom answer due 11/15/2023; Mark Hojnacki answer due 11/15/2023; McKinsey & Co., Inc. answer due 11/15/2023; McKinsey & Company Inc. United States answer due 11/15/2023; McKinsey Recovery & Transforma tion Services U.S., LLC answer due 11/15/2023; Virginia Molino answer due 11/15/2023; Alison Proshan answer due 11/15/2023; Robert Sternfels answer due 11/15/2023; Jared D. Yerian answer due 11/15/2023( Initial Conference set for 12/5/2023 at 03:00 PM before Judge Jesse M. Furman.). (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/04/2023) (ama)
|
|
Filing
206
ORDER granting 201 Letter Motion to Stay re: 201 LETTER MOTION to Stay all discovery pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from John Gleeson date d September 12, 2022. The Court intimates no view on the merits of Defendants' motion to dismiss. But upon consideration of the relevant factors, see, e.g., HAHA Glob., Inc. v. Barclays, No. 19-CV-04749 (VEC) (SDA), 2020 WL 832341, at *1 (S.D.N .Y. Feb. 20, 2020), the Court concludes that discovery should indeed be stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss (if not a ruling on the pending petition for the writ of certiorari), substantially for the reasons provided by Defendants. I t is true that this case is "long in the tooth," ECF No. 205, at 2 (internal quotation marks omitted), but a delay of a few more months will not prejudice Plaintiff and, given the scope and nature of the claims, it is in the interests of all parties and the Court to know which, if any, of Plaintiff's claims will proceed. Accordingly, discovery is stayed pending a decision on the pending motion to dismiss. (Having said that, the Court notes that, if or when discovery does proc eed, it has no intention of staging discovery to prioritize the Rule 17 issue, as Defendants propose. That is the price of Defendants' request for a delay.) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 201. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/22/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
204
ORDER granting 203 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. (The Court apologizes for overlooking the fact that it had already imposed a deadline.) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 203. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/13/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
166
ORDER: As stated on the record during the teleconference held earlier today: Plaintiff shall file any motion for leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall, within seven days of Plainti ff's motion, confer with one another and Plaintiff and file a letter: -stating whether there are grounds to oppose the proposed amendment separate and apart from the failure to state a claim; and -proposing a briefing schedule for any motion t o oppose the proposed amendment and/or any motion(s) to dismiss, including but not limited to any motions pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants shall file a letter-motion to stay discovery, not to exceed five pages, within three days of any motion to dismiss; Plaintiff shall file any opposition, not to exceed five pages, within a week of such a letter-motion. Discovery is stayed pending the Court's decision on that motion. Un less the Court grants prior leave to do otherwise, all defense submissions shall be made jointly i.e., on a consolidated basis. Put differently, if any Defendant believes that there are independent bases for a motion that call for separate briefing, that Defendant must seek leave to file separately. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/31/2022) (tro)
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER granting 160 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference; terminating 161 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The conference scheduled for May 24, 222, is rescheduled to May 31, 2022, at 9:45 a.m. All other dates and deadlines (including the b riefing schedule) remain in effect. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 160 and 161. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 5/31/2022 at 09:45 AM before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/19/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
139
OPINION AND ORDER re: 123 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) and Contingent Motion for Leave to Amend Pursuant to Rule 15(a) or, Alternatively, for Entry of Order of Preclusion. filed by Jay Alix. Alix's motions are DENIED. That may or may not leave Alix with an avenue to appeal the Court's ruling dismissing his RICO Claims the initial motivation for his voluntary dismissal of the State Law Claims and the primary goal of his subsequent procedural maneuv ers. Compare, e.g., Chappelle, 84 F.3d at 654 (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss where the plaintiff had thereafter voluntarily dismissed her remaining claims without prejudi ce), with Hill v. Didio, 191 F. App'x 13, 15 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (hearing an appeal of a decision dismissing RICO claims on the merits and dismissing state-law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). But that is a question for another day and presumably for the Second Circuit, not for this Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 123 and close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/6/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
104
OPINION AND ORDER re: 88 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss by all defendants. filed by McKinsey Holdings, Inc., Kevin Carmody, Alison Proshan, McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S., LLC, Jon Garcia, Seth Goldstrom, Robert Stern fels, McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, Dominic Barton, McKinsey & Co., Inc. If Alix's allegations in this case are true (as the Court has assumed they are for purposes of this motion), they are certainly troubling. Moreover, Alix and AlixPartners may well have good reason to be upset about Defendants' alleged misconduct and may indeed have genuinely public-spirited reasons for seeking to deter it going forward. But that is not enough to state a claim for relief, much less a claim under the civil RICO statute, which provides a remedy only to those whose injuries directly resulted from a defendant's scheme. Defendants' motion to dismiss is accordingly GRANTED as to Alix's federal claims and those claims t he First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action are dismissed with prejudice. The Court defers ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss Alix's state-law claims until it confirms, following the parties' supplemental briefing in a ccordance with the schedule set forth above, that it has diversity jurisdiction over those claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the Individual Defendants Dominic Barton, Kevin Carmody, Jon Garcia, Seth Goldstrom, Alison Proshan, Rob ert Sternfels, and Jared D. Yerian as parties and to terminate ECF No. 88. SO ORDERED., (Jon Garcia, Seth Goldstrom, Alison Proshan, Robert Sternfels, Jared D. Yerian, Dominic Barton and Kevin Carmody terminated.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/19/19) (yv)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
