Hamrit v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Background

Houssam Eddine Hamrit moved for partial reconsideration of the court’s July 22, 2024 discovery order. The motion invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b), as well as Local Rules 6.2 and 6.3. The underlying dispute concerns whether Hamrit signed the C29 Account Application and Client Agreement, which the Citigroup defendants contend he signed. The opinion text states that an earlier court decision identified that issue as central to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement existed.

Discovery dispute

Hamrit’s document request sought “[a]ll documents relating or pertaining to the opening of the C29 Account Application and Client Agreement allegedly signed by me.” He argued that the July 22 order had changed the request’s meaning by referring to documents “signed by Plaintiff that related to the account opening,” including later signed correspondence. According to Hamrit, this wording limited production to documents bearing his signature rather than requiring production of all documents relating to the account application and client agreement.

Hamrit asked the court to revise the prior order to require the Citigroup defendants to produce “all documents relating or pertaining to the C29 Account Application and Client Agreement.”

Ruling

The court denied the motion. The readable portion of the ruling states that Hamrit’s rereading of his discovery request omitted the phrase “allegedly signed by me,” which modified the rest of the request. It further states that the only aspect of the request not included in the prior order was the word “allegedly,” and that this omission would not have affected the defendants’ response because they disputed that Hamrit had signed the relevant documents. The supplied opinion text ends mid-sentence, so the remainder of the court’s reasoning is unavailable.