FINRA Discovery Guide

Discovery has always been a problem in litigation matters. In broad strokes, plaintiffs want to see every document that might possibly have any bearing on any issue in the case, and defendants don’t want to produce a single document. The courts and arbitration panels spend a significant amount of time trying to sort it all out.

In FINRA arbitration, there is almost always a motion to compel one side or the other to produce documents and information, with attendant delays in the discovery process.

In 2003 the NASD attempted to create lists of documents that should be produced in most cases, and in doing so, ignored the fact that cases are fact specific, and we cannot have a list of documents for all cases.

The Guide explicitly acknowledges this, and states that parties and arbitrators should recognize that not all firms have the same business
operation model and certain items on the Lists may not apply to a particular case when the firm’s business model (e.g. full service firm, discount broker, clearing firm, or online broker) is taken into consideration. In addition, certain items on the Customer List may not apply to a
particular case depending on the claims asserted.  Parties can object to items in the Guide, but must do so in a written objection, within the time frames set forth in the Customer Code.

The Discovery Guide was a step forward, and over the years it has evolved. So long as parties and arbitrators keep in mind that the Guide is just that – a Guide – and not a list of what must be produced, or an exhaustive list of everything that should be produced, the Guide will continue to preempt some discovery disputes.

The FINRA Discovery Guide


Mark Astarita is a securities attorney who represents investors and financial professionals across the country in their arbitration, litigation and regulatory matters. He is a partner in the boutique law firm of Sallah Astarita & Cox. You can email Mark with questions at mja@sallahlaw.com



You may also be interested in:

  • UBS YES Losses? Investors who lost money in UBS’ Yield Enhancement Strategy (YES) may be able to recover their losses
  • Recover GPB Capital Losses After inquiries by the SEC, FINRA and the FBI, GPB Capital has announced significant losses in the value of its investment funds.  Two of its funds, GPB Holdings II and GPB Automotive Portfolio, have reported losses of 25.4% and 39%, respectively according to InvestmentNews.com GPB Capital Holdings is a New York based alternative asset management firm with approximately ...
  • SDNY Defines Customer under FINRA Rule 12200 Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York has issued a decision defining a customer, for purposes of FINRA Rule 12200 as being a person or entity who have an account with the member, or who has purchased goods and services from the member. In doing so, it orders some claims in the ...
  • Brokers Say Moving to RIA Was Positive  A new report from TD Ameritrade Institutional, which gathered data from current and former brokerage reps, illustrates a generally positive attitude toward the RIA channel and signals a continuation of the migration trend.The findings from the 2019 Benchmarking and Independence report showed that 44% of brokers surveyed said the likelihood of them leaving the brokerage ...
  • SEC Proposes to Improve Disclosures Relating to Acquisitions and Dispositions of Businesses The SEC has voted to propose rule amendments to improve the information that investors receive regarding the acquisition and disposition of businesses.  The proposed amendments are also intended to facilitate more timely access to capital and to reduce complexity and compliance costs of these financial disclosures. “The proposed rules are, first and foremost, intended to ...
  • SEC Charges Sapphire Glass Manufacturer and Former CEO With Fraud The SEC has charged a New Hampshire-based company and its former CEO with misleading investors about the company’s ability to supply “sapphire glass” for Apple’s iPhones. The company, GT Advanced Technologies Inc., also is found to have misclassified more than $300 million in debt to Apple that resulted from its repeated failures to meet ...