FP 39240666.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION 

 FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, ) 

) 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-2133 

) 

JENNIFER TAYLOR, FAIRHAVEN WEALTH ) 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, ) 

) 

Defendants/Counter-Claimants. ) 

__________________________________________) 

PLAINTIFF’S REPORT ON STATUS OF EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

PREVIOUSLY ORDERED BY THE COURT 

Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC (“Fidelity”) files this Status Report pursuant to the 

Court’s Order dated November 2, 2020 (the “November 2 Order”). 

Introduction 

Fidelity files this report on a non-joint basis because, despite the clear language of the 

Court’s November 2 Order, Defendants proposed and insisted on a lengthy report covering far 

more than what the Court instructed in the November 2 Order. Because the parties have been 

unable to agree on a Joint Report, or even the subjects that should be addressed, Fidelity submits 

this separate report. 

The Court’s November 2 Order 

The Court’s Order directing the filing of this report stated, “[u]pon completion of the 

expedited discovery permitted by prior Order, the Court expects to set a briefing schedule on the 

plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion and to stay further proceedings pending the arbitration of 

Fidelity’s claims against Defendant Taylor.” (Dkt. 60). The Court’s Order directed the parties to 

submit a joint report “as to the status of discovery” by 12/2/20. Id. The Court had previously 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 74 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1081
FP 39240666.1 2

Ordered the parties to exchange narrowly targeted document requests, which they have done, and 

ordered three depositions: the two Fidelity individuals central to Fidelity’s claims and Defendant 

Taylor. See Order dated May 22, 2020 (Dkt. 29). 

During the hearing with the parties on November 2, 2020 that led to issuance of the 

November 2 Order, the Court made clear to the parties that it intends to stay this court action after 

completion of the limited expedited discovery previously ordered by the Court in connection with 

the motion for preliminary injunction. Following that hearing, and in the November 2 Order, the 

Court granted Fidelity’s motion to amend its Complaint to add claims against Fairhaven Wealth 

Management, LLC. During that hearing, the Court stated that, despite the fact that the Court was 

allowing the complaint to be amended, “we’re not going to be going forward on two separate tracks 

simultaneously. We’re not going to have a rush to judgment or race to judgment in a dueling 

arbitration and lawsuit in this case.” See Transcript of November 2, 2020 Hearing, page 13. The 

Court went on to instruct the parties that: 

We’re going forward on the same path that we have marked out to this point 

already, meaning we’re going to finish the limited expedited discovery that’s 

been authorized, and I’m going to stay further proceedings in this case once 

that happens so that there is a clear track that the arbitration will proceed. 

Once the arbitration has proceeded, we’ll see what that portends for further 

litigation in the federal case that is filed in this Court. But we’re not going to go 

forward on two different tracks setting up, you know, again, a race to judgment in 

the arbitration versus a race to judgment in this lawsuit. 

Id. at 14 (emphasis added). 

During that hearing, counsel for Fidelity requested the ability to take one additional 

deposition, that of the Fairhaven assistant who also solicited Fidelity’s customers, and the Court 

denied this request. The Court then specifically clarified that even though the claim against 

Fairhaven would remain in Court “you’re not going to be doing broad discovery that the claim 

would ordinarily merit while the arbitration on the claims against Ms. Taylor is proceeding.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 74 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:1082
FP 39240666.1 3

Id. at page 16. The Court then concluded the hearing by directing the parties to file a status report 

“to report on the status of those depositions and to have a picture of when we’re going to be done 

with discovery so that the case can go to arbitration.” Id. at page 17 (emphasis added). 

Status of Expedited Discovery Previously Ordered by the Court 

On November 19, 2020, Defendants served sweepingly broad and extensive discovery 

requests despite the clear directive from the Court that (a) broad discovery was not going to be 

permitted at this stage, (b) the parties were to finish the limited discovery the Court had previously 

ordered, (c) after which the case would be stayed following the Preliminary Injunction. 

Specifically, Defendants served: 

• 83 document requests 

• 25 interrogatories 

• 17 deposition notices for fact witnesses 

• 1 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice for a Fidelity representative. 

Fidelity does not believe that any of the foregoing discovery is authorized at this time in this case 

pursuant to the Court’s clear directive at the November 2 hearing and in the November 2 Order. 

With regard to the discovery ordered: 

Document Requests Authorized by the Court: The requests were completed and documents 

produced (contrary to Defendants’ assertion, the calendar entries were produced by Fidelity at 

bates numbers 14006-14556). 

Depositions Ordered by the Court: Since the Court’s November 2 Hearing, the parties 

engaged in settlement discussions, including discussions of a potential mediation, but those efforts 

were not successful. Fidelity is prepared to proceed immediately with the three depositions and 

has provided dates of availability to do so. Defendants are only available to begin the depositions 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 74 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:1083
FP 39240666.1 4

on December 29th and today stated that they would not conduct the depositions virtually as had 

been specifically agreed to by email dated June 12, 2020 (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). Counsel 

then received an email from Defendants’ counsel this afternoon offering to do them by Zoom if 

the witnesses could be deposed “multiple times,” which will need to be discussed further. 

Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Procedural Posture for Arbitration 

Fidelity expects that once those depositions have been conducted, its briefing on the 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction could be submitted within ten days. If any type of injunctive 

order is issued by the Court, Fidelity and Defendant Taylor, at minimum, will proceed to an 

expedited arbitration hearing on the issue of permanent injunctive relief before a three-member 

FINRA Dispute Resolution Inc. (“FINRA DR”) arbitration Panel pursuant to FINRA Code of 

Arbitration Procedure Rule 13804(b)(1). If the Court does not issue injunctive relief, Fidelity and 

Taylor will proceed with arbitration at FINRA DR under its standard (non-expedited) rules and 

procedures. 

Dated: December 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 

/s/ Joel W. Rice 

Joel W. Rice 

Franklin Z. Wolf 

10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450 

Chicago, IL 60606 

TEL: (312) 346-8061 

FAX: (312) 346-3179 

jrice@fisherphillips.com

fwolf@fisherphillips.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 74 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:1084
FP 39240666.1 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of December, 2020, the foregoing document was filed 

via the Court’s electronic filing system, which sent notice to the following: 

Christopher Griesmeyer, Esquire 

Zachary Mulcrone, Esquire 

Greiman, Rome & Griesmeyer, LLC 

Two N. LaSalle, Suite 1601 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Counsel for Defendants 

/s/ Joel W. Rice 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 74 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:1085