St. Clair County Employees' Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., 3:18-cv-00988

Securities-fraud class action against Acadia Healthcare and individual officers alleging misstatements about performance of Priory (U.K. business Acadia acquired in 2016); class period April 30, 2014–Nov. 15, 2018.
Discovery was stayed under the PSLRA while the motion to dismiss was pending; the stay lifted after denial of the motion to dismiss in Jan. 2021. Acadia sold Priory in Dec. 2020.
Plaintiffs requested documents located at Priory (in the U.K.); Acadia refused to produce materials located only outside the U.S. or not in Acadia’s possession, custody, or control.
Plaintiffs moved to compel, pointing to Acadia’s prior production of two Priory custodians’ emails and representations that it would discuss collecting additional Priory materials, arguing those facts show Acadia has control.
The Magistrate Judge ordered production, finding Acadia had “control” over Priory documents based on its practical ability to obtain them; Defendants sought district-court review of that nondispositive order.
The district court affirmed: Sixth Circuit authority does not foreclose a practical-ability test for Rule 34 control, and the Magistrate Judge’s factual finding of control was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Acadia has “possession, custody, or control” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 over documents housed at Priory in the U.K.	Priory documents are discoverable because Acadia previously collected/produced Priory custodian emails and represented willingness to collect more — showing practical ability to obtain documents.	Acadia lacks control because it no longer owns Priory and has no legal right to command production after the sale; Rule 34 requires a legal right to obtain documents.	Magistrate Judge: control may be found from practical ability to obtain documents; District Court: affirmed — practical-ability test permissible and applied here given Acadia’s prior collection/representations.

In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465 (6th Cir.) (documents are within Rule 34’s "possession, custody, or control" when party has actual possession or the legal right to obtain them)
Bisig v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 940 F.3d 205 (6th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for magistrate judge nondispositive pretrial matters: clearly erroneous or contrary to law)
Pittman v. Experian Info. Sys., 901 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2018) (scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court)