Marshall Wace Challenges Citadel’s Broad Document Demands

In a court filing on Tuesday in New York, Marshall Wace argued Citadel is seeking overly broad and burdensome document searches in the arbitration involving Daniel Shatz.

Shatz left Citadel in 2024 and joined Marshall Wace as global head of credit. He alleges Citadel withheld an eight-figure deferred compensation award after his departure and that the withholding was retaliation for concerns he raised about potential securities violations. Citadel contends Shatz breached his employment agreement by taking confidential information and has sought communications and other records from Marshall Wace.

A judge in June allowed Citadel to subpoena Marshall Wace records the court deemed relevant to the arbitration, including communications about the construction of a new credit team. Marshall Wace had attempted to block those subpoenas, arguing the discovery requests were being used to harass a competitor.

Citadel later asked the court to clarify that Marshall Wace executives Anthony Clake and Alan Hofmeyr fall within the subpoenas’ scope and to broaden the list of search terms used to find responsive documents. In its latest filing, Marshall Wace rejected those requests as unnecessary while existing discovery proceeds.

Marshall Wace told the court many of Citadel’s proposed search terms are “highly common,” which would return large volumes of material unrelated to the arbitration, and that Citadel declined to engage in discussions that might narrow the requests. The filing described some of Citadel’s applications as “premature, unnecessary and unwarranted,” and said they would divert resources from ongoing discovery.

Citadel has accused Marshall Wace of delaying access to evidence. A Citadel spokesperson responded that the firm expects Marshall Wace to comply with the court’s order and produce the requested emails. Marshall Wace said its document production should be completed shortly and that it intends to “fully comply” with the court order.

The arbitration over deferred compensation and alleged breaches of employment agreements remains pending. The parties are now focused on the scope and mechanics of the court-ordered document discovery.