In Re: Term Commodities Cotton Futures Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs moved for limited reconsideration or, alternatively, clarification of the court’s March 28, 2024 order. That earlier order granted defendants’ request to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of allowing defendants to send a document subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to ICE Futures U.S. The subpoena could seek information identifying large traders and their trading positions.

In deciding to reopen discovery, the court had considered six factors: whether trial was imminent, whether the request was opposed, potential prejudice to the opposing party, the moving party’s diligence, whether the need for discovery was foreseeable, and whether the discovery was likely to produce relevant evidence. The court previously found that three factors favored plaintiffs and three favored defendants, but concluded that limited discovery should be reopened.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

Plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its findings concerning defendants’ diligence and the foreseeability of arbitration-related discovery. Plaintiffs argued that changing those two findings would cause four of the six factors to favor plaintiffs and would require denying defendants permission to issue the subpoena to ICE.

Plaintiffs also argued that the court had misinterpreted Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., a case cited in the earlier order. They relied on findings that defendants in other cases had given earlier notice of their intent to arbitrate.

Court’s Analysis

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. It is generally available only when there has been a controlling change in the law, new evidence has become available, or correction is needed to address a clear error or prevent serious injustice. The court explained that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues or present new theories.

The court found that plaintiffs had not identified material facts or controlling law that justified changing the earlier order. It had already considered the relevant facts concerning defendants’ disclosure of their intent to arbitrate and the foreseeability of arbitration-related discovery. The additional briefing did not provide evidence requiring the court to change its conclusions, and the cases plaintiffs cited were not controlling.

The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument concerning Chen-Oster. It explained that the context of each case matters when evaluating whether the length of litigation weighs against arbitration. In this case, the court had found that the individual defenses were not cognizable earlier in the litigation and that defendants informed plaintiffs of their intent to raise them soon after class certification closed. The court found no clear error or serious injustice in that reasoning.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The court clarified that the March 28, 2024 order allowed defendants to issue the limited subpoena to ICE but did not prevent either side from presenting arguments in a later motion to compel arbitration. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report about the limited discovery 30 days after entry of this order and opinion.