The High Court has proposed ordering Daniel Needham to disclose documents concerning his recruitment by Citadel and alleged assistance in recruiting former colleagues from Susquehanna International Group (SIG). Ms Justice Baker ruled on a discovery motion in the company’s proceedings against Mr Needham, but said counsel would be heard on the exact form of the order.
SIG seeks damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Mr Needham breached his employment contract by disclosing confidential business information and assisting Citadel to recruit SIG staff. Mr Needham denies the allegations. The court did not decide whether any breach occurred; it considered what documents must be disclosed before trial.
For the first category, the court limited the request to documents relating to or evidencing Mr Needham’s contact and engagement concerning employment for himself and other SIG employees to whom Citadel made offers. The scope includes relevant dealings with Execuzen, a recruitment agency that the judgment says acted for Citadel, and with Citadel LLC or a related company that intended to or did establish a business in Ireland.
The court also held that discoverable documents may include material Mr Needham can obtain through a data subject access request. It directed him to take reasonable steps to seek relevant documents from Citadel or Execuzen. The judge said it was too early to determine how far he must go if either company refuses access, and gave him liberty to apply if reasonable efforts fail. The court’s ruling does not require him to pursue a challenge to a refusal at this stage.
A second category concerns documents connected to SIG’s business that Mr Needham sent to his personal email account or another person. Discovery was agreed, with the dispute about the time limit. The judge ruled that this category, and the first, should extend to the date of the discovery motion, rather than ending when Mr Needham left SIG on 29 April 2016.
The third category concerns interactions between Mr Needham and other SIG employees in connection with their departures to join Citadel. The judge rejected the argument that it was an impermissible fishing exercise, finding a basis in the pleadings and known facts for seeking those documents. She noted that the claim pleaded alleged assistance with recruiting more than one employee, while Mr Needham denied using information about colleagues in his Citadel interviews.
The court proposed that discovery be completed within ten weeks. The time for documents requiring data access requests may be extended by agreement or further order. Mr Needham is to include related correspondence with his affidavit of discovery and explain progress by affidavit. These are directions on discovery; the underlying contractual claims remain unresolved.