La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc.

La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc.

Opinion

 [*77]  OPINION AND ORDER

GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Brian La Belle has sued defendant Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays") for unlawful retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745. See generally Amended Complaint, filed July 21, 2021 (Docket # 147) ("Comp.").¹ La Belle has moved for discovery sanctions against Barclays pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Court's inherent authority.² For the reasons explained below, La Belle's motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

La Belle was employed by Barclays from July 2015 until his termination in August 2018. See Comp. ¶¶ 8, 59. La Belle alleges that while at Barclays he reported violations of law and other misconduct. See Comp. ¶¶ 11-59. La Belle alleges that thereafter, he faced retaliation from his supervisors — principally, Larry Kravetz, Brian Wiele, [**2]  and Eric Wu — that included his termination. See id. Barclays denies these allegations and asserts it properly terminated La Belle. See Answer, filed Aug. 4, 2021 (Docket # 153).

II. DISCUSSION

La Belle seeks sanctions against Barclays on three grounds: (1) that Barclays misled the Court and wasted plaintiff's time in relation to the existence of recordings of Wiele's phone calls and violated a Court order relating to those recordings, see Pl. Mem. at 1-8, 13-17; Pl. Reply at 3-5; (2) that Barclays engaged in spoliation by failing to preserve notebooks used by La Belle during his employment; see Pl. Mem. at 11-13, 17-19; Pl. Reply at 9-10; and (3) that Barclays engaged in spoliation by failing to preserve text messages to or from Kravetz and Wiele, see Pl.  [*78]  Mem. at 8-11, 17-19; Pl. Reply at 5-8. We address each ground next.

A. Recording of Wiele's Phone Calls

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.