Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-01260
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brous v. Eligo Energy, Judge Ramos ordered plaintiffs to respond by November 12 to defendants’ request to limit and phase discovery.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC; plaintiffs were directed to respond to defendants’ request to separate and limit discovery.
What happened
Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC concerns defendants’ request to limit discovery while the parties litigate plaintiffs’ claims about variable electricity rates under their contracts with Eligo. Defendants argued that the discovery sought was excessive and costly, and that the case could be resolved through an early summary-judgment motion.
Defendants asked the court to limit discovery for 90 days to the named plaintiffs’ individual claims, allow Eligo to file a summary-judgment motion afterward, and limit electronic-document review to 50,000 documents unless plaintiffs agreed to pay for more review. The letter says the requested limits were justified by the burden and expense of reviewing millions of documents.
Judge Ramos did not decide the request in the supplied order. Instead, the court directed plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ request to separate and limit discovery by November 12, 2024.
The detailed version
- Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01260
- Edgardo Ramos
- Nov. 8, 2024
Background
The supplied text is a November 6, 2024 letter from defendants’ counsel, followed by Judge Ramos’s November 8 endorsement. The letter describes a dispute over whether Eligo Energy New York LLC charged variable electricity rates in accordance with customer contracts. The contracts referred to market-related factors, including market pricing, market conditions, market and wholesale factors, and pricing strategies. The letter says defendants believe Second Circuit precedent resolves the contract issue in Eligo’s favor and that defendants intend to seek summary judgment.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs had pursued overly broad electronic discovery. They cited requests for information from all sources without date limits, 13 discovery motions, and searches that could involve millions of documents. The letter states that Eligo’s email system alone contained more than 4 million documents, that storing collected data cost $10,000 per month, and that reviewing 500,000 documents would take about 10,000 hours and cost more than $1 million. Defendants proposed limiting further discovery to targeted searches concerning the named plaintiffs and capping review at 50,000 documents unless plaintiffs agreed to bear additional costs.
Requested Relief
Defendants asked the court to: (1) limit discovery for 90 days to the plaintiffs’ individual claims; (2) permit Eligo to file a summary-judgment motion after that period; and (3) limit Eligo’s electronic-document review to 50,000 documents unless plaintiffs agreed to pay for additional review. Defendants also suggested further briefing so the court could receive evidence about the proposed discovery limits.
Court’s Action
Judge Ramos did not grant or deny the discovery request in the supplied endorsement. The court ordered plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ request to separate and limit discovery by November 12, 2024. The text does not state any ruling on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, on the requested discovery limits, or on any summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.