Opinion ID: 2776673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of Discovery Allowed to Sarnacki

Text: Sarnacki concludes by arguing that, at minimum, the district court should have granted broader discovery. In particular, Sarnacki wants access to the communications among the SLC, their counsel, the defendants, and the defendants' counsel. Sarnacki also asks for the minutes of the SLC meetings and the retention agreements between the SLC and its advisors. Since the SLC did not police these relationships, Sarnacki argues, he is entitled to evidence allowing him to probe them for bias. -20- To succeed, Sarnacki must overcome two hurdles. First, we review the district court's decisions about the scope of discovery for abuse of discretion, reversing only upon a clear showing [that] . . . the lower court's discovery order was plainly wrong and resulted in substantial prejudice to the aggrieved party. United States ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P., 719 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2013) (alterations in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Second, Zapata itself contemplates only [l]imited discovery . . . to facilitate the inquiry. 430 A.2d at 788. This discovery is intended more as an aid to the Court than it is as a preparation tool for the parties, and is not afforded to the plaintiff as a matter of right but only to such extent as the Court deems necessary. Kaplan v. Wyatt, 484 A.2d 501, 510 (Del. Ch. 1984), aff'd 499 A.2d 1184 (Del. 1985). Sarnacki cites a series of cases in which courts have granted discovery of the type of documents he seeks. E.g., Zitin v. Turley, No. Civ. 89-2061-PHX-CAM, 1991 WL 283814, at -4 (D. Ariz. June 20, 1991) (granting discovery of communications between an SLC and its counsel). Only one case suggests that plaintiffs should receive that discovery as a matter of course. Grimes v. DSC Commc'ns Corp., 724 A.2d 561, 567 (Del. Ch. 1998). But even that case does not suggest that, in the highly fact-intensive context of a Zapata inquiry, a more limited discovery scope is an abuse of -21- discretion. In this case, the defendants provided the final SLC report, all documents relied on by the SLC to produce that report, Board minutes regarding the formation and appointment of the SLC, and the SLC members for deposition. Sarnacki, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 321. Sarnacki did not file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) alleging that it could not present facts in response to the motion for summary dismissal essential to its opposition. See Jones v. Secord, 684 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2012) (describing Rule 56(d) as a safety net for parties that need more time to gather facts essential to resist a motion for summary judgment). Considering the specific discovery requests in Sarnacki's motions to compel further discovery, the district court decided that they were overbroad, extending well beyond the intent of the court in permitting limited discovery and that the substantial disclosures already provided were sufficient to permit [Sarnacki] to build an adequate record. Sarnacki has also failed to mount a serious challenge to the independence, good faith, and reasonableness of the SLC inquiry. The district court decided that the discovery was adequate to aid its review, and that decision was not an abuse of the court's discretion. -22-