Williams v. Federal Government of Nigeria

Background

The Central Bank of Nigeria moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 for an order compelling Dr. Louis Emovbira Williams to correct and supplement his response to the bank’s notice to produce documents. The requested relief included requiring an attorney of record to sign the response; organizing and labeling documents by request; identifying documents withheld based on objections or privilege and providing a privilege log; explaining which responsive documents were unavailable and what steps had been taken to obtain them; producing documents within Williams’s possession, custody, or control, including documents held by his London lawyers; withdrawing certain objections; and producing or identifying public reports and other responsive documents. The Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federal Government of Nigeria joined the motion.

Extension Request

Williams did not timely respond to the motions to compel. After the court warned that the motions would be treated as unopposed unless he responded, Williams requested an extension through December 9, 2024. The court denied the extension. It explained that Williams had been given a week to respond to the legal issues raised by the motions, rather than to produce documents by the response deadline. The court found that his references to the need to consult with a client in poor health, lawyers in the United Kingdom, and other challenges showed neither “good cause” nor “excusable neglect,” the standards governing the requested extension.

Ruling on Discovery

The court granted the motions to compel in part and denied them in part. It held that Williams’s response was defective because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) requires a discovery response to be signed by an attorney of record, unless the party is unrepresented. The response also had to state whether documents were being withheld based on an objection or privilege and, if so, provide a privilege log. The court further ruled that “calls for a legal conclusion” and an objection that the term “agreement” called for a legal conclusion were not proper objections to document requests.

The court stated that documents must be produced as kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond to the request categories. Without a valid objection, Williams had to produce documents in his possession, custody, or control. He could object that the defendants had the responsive documents, and if he declined to produce a document because it was publicly available, he had to identify it. The court denied the motions to compel in all other respects.

Required Action and Disposition

Unless the parties reached another agreement submitted to and approved by the court, Williams had to serve a proper signed response and the requested documents no later than December 9, 2024. Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Docket Numbers 43 and 44. The opinion concerns discovery procedures and does not decide the underlying claims in the case.