Williams v. Federal Government of Nigeria

Background

The Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federal Government of Nigeria moved to compel Dr. Louis Emovbira Williams to do two things: provide supplemental responses to their document requests, and either produce documents related to three civil actions filed against them and the Central Bank of Nigeria in the United Kingdom in 2008, 2016, and 2019, or give a detailed explanation of his efforts to obtain those documents.

The court had previously ordered Williams to produce all documents responsive to the defendants’ requests and to provide supplemental responses stating only whether he was producing responsive documents or had none. Williams later served supplemental responses that incorporated his earlier general objections, subject to the court’s orders. The defendants argued that this reference was improper and that Williams should be ordered to serve another set of responses without it.

Court’s reasoning

The court denied the request concerning the incorporated objections. It had already ordered Williams to produce all responsive documents, and the record did not appear to show that he withheld documents based on the incorporated objections. Because the reference was expressly made subject to the court’s orders, removing it would serve no purpose.

Williams stated that he could not produce the documents from the three United Kingdom actions because he did not possess them. He also stated that he understood his continuing obligation to produce newly discovered responsive documents and that his United Kingdom and Nigerian counsel had been directed to send him responsive paperwork they obtained.

The defendants argued that these statements were inadequate and claimed that a December 30, 2024 order required Williams to provide an affidavit or sworn statement describing which documents did not exist and the steps he had taken to obtain them. Judge Liman rejected that reading. The December 30 order did not require such an affidavit, and the court had denied the defendants’ request for one in a December 2, 2024 order.

The court characterized the defendants’ request as “discovery on discovery”—discovery seeking information about how a party searched for and produced documents, rather than information directly relevant to a claim or defense. Such a request requires an adequate factual basis and close scrutiny because it can unnecessarily extend the discovery process. The court found that the defendants had not provided enough reason to question Williams’s good-faith efforts to obtain the United Kingdom litigation documents. It also found that the defendants had not identified a failure by Williams’s United States counsel to comply with discovery duties and had not shown a basis for seeking discovery about records that were presumably already in the defendants’ possession from litigations to which they were parties.

Disposition

Judge Liman denied the motion to compel and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 58. The court noted that the defendants could question Williams at his deposition about documents that had and had not been produced. It further stated that a record developed through the deposition or otherwise could later provide a basis for additional discovery about discovery or sanctions, including a possible second deposition at Williams’s expense. The opinion did not impose those measures.

Result

The motion to compel was denied.