Blueprint Capital Advisors, LLC v. Murphy
2:25-cv-01995
D.N.J.Jun 26, 2025Background
- Blueprint Capital Advisors (BCA) alleges a conspiracy involving the New Jersey Division of Investment (DOI), BlackRock, and Owl Rock to misappropriate BCA's proprietary investment program, with key roles played by non-parties Doug Ostrover and Alan Kirshenbaum of Owl Rock.
- BCA issued subpoenas to Ostrover and Kirshenbaum seeking documents believed to support their claims of racketeering, civil rights violations, and commercial torts against multiple defendants, including state officials and investment entities.
- The subpoenas sought (1) documents from 2016–2020 about a "co-investment vehicle" used to direct DOI investments to Owl Rock, and (2) documents predating 2015 concerning Timothy Walsh (a former DOI Director) and his relationships with relevant parties.
- Ostrover and Kirshenbaum, as non-parties and Owl Rock executives, opposed the motion to compel, arguing lack of relevance, undue burden, and overbreadth.
- The court evaluated the relevance and burden of the requested material under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45, as well as the connection between the discovery requests and the claims in BCA's complaint.
- The court denied the motion to compel in large part, limiting BCA's document requests to a narrower time period and rejecting broad discovery not closely tied to pleaded claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-parties must produce documents about the co-investment vehicle (2016-2020) | Documents are relevant to showing Owl Rock’s knowledge and role in alleged RICO scheme | Requests lack clear connection to claims; not pleaded in the complaint; unduly burdensome | Motion denied; insufficient relevance; too speculative and burdensome |
| Whether non-parties must produce pre-2015 documents about Walsh’s relationships | Pre-2015 materials may show the existence of an enterprise/conspiracy | Pre-2015 requests are overly burdensome, predating Owl Rock’s existence, and irrelevant | Motion denied as to pre-2015 requests; limited to 2015-present |
| Discovery scope for non-party subpoenas | Broadly necessary to uncover evidence of conspiracy and motive | Overly broad, unsupported by pled facts, unnecessary prior to agreed timeframe, improper fishing | Limited to specific topics and 2015 onward |
| Standard for enforcing subpoenas against non-parties | Documents are crucial for building BCA’s claims | Non-parties entitled to heightened protection; requests unreasonable without clear factual predicate | Applied heightened protection; denied enforcement for overly broad requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., 894 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discovery is meant to substantiate viable claims, not to find out if a claim exists)
- Smith v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuius, P.C., 2008 WL 2885887 (D.N.J. 2008) (plaintiff must plead more than speculation; discovery is not for finding causes of action)
- Stamy v. Packer, 138 F.R.D. 412 (D.N.J. 1990) (non-parties get heightened protection from discovery burdens)
- Schmulovich v. 1161 Rt. 9 LLC, 2007 WL 2362598 (D.N.J. 2007) (factors for assessing reasonableness of subpoena requests)