Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC

Background

Plaintiffs brought claims under the Antiterrorism Act against financial institutions allegedly involved in funding terrorist activity that resulted in Quinn Lucas Schansman’s death. In an earlier order dated February 27, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel VTB Bank PJSC to produce documents and required production within 21 days.

The court considered two motions: VTB’s motion for reconsideration of the earlier discovery order, and plaintiffs’ motion to strike a declaration submitted by VTB in support of reconsideration.

Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs argued that VTB had not obtained advance permission required by Local Civil Rule 6.3 before filing an affidavit with its reconsideration motion. The court explained that it had discretion to overlook a party’s failure to comply with a local rule and exercised that discretion because the declaration had no effect on the outcome of the reconsideration motion.

Plaintiffs also argued that the declaration improperly relied on facts occurring after the earlier decision. The court addressed that issue in evaluating reconsideration rather than striking the declaration. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the declaration could not be considered without a certified translation, explaining that the sworn declaration was in English and that the court considered only that declaration, not the purported Russian translation. The motion to strike was denied.

Motion for Reconsideration: Other Sources for Records

VTB asked the court to reconsider the earlier conclusion that plaintiffs lacked sufficient alternative means to obtain the requested materials. VTB argued that plaintiffs had already received records concerning VTB’s correspondent banking accounts in New York and that producing similar records would be unreasonably duplicative. VTB also asked the court to limit the discovery order to documents located in Russia and to exclude documents plaintiffs had already received or could obtain through third-party subpoenas.

The court rejected reconsideration. It found that VTB had already made, and the court had already rejected, the central argument that plaintiffs had obtained records from correspondent banks. The court also found that VTB was raising its argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 about duplicative discovery for the first time in the reconsideration motion, without explaining why it had not raised the argument earlier. The same was true of VTB’s proposed limitation on the order and its new factual assertion that certain records in Russia were available from correspondent banks.

The court further held that VTB had not identified an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Even considering the merits, the court found that VTB offered no support for its conclusory assertions that the records were duplicative or similar, no practical method for identifying duplicative requests, and no explanation of why producing potentially duplicative records would create additional burdens under Russian law.

Motion for Reconsideration: Production Deadline

The earlier order required VTB to produce the specified information within 21 days. That deadline expired on March 20, 2025, without VTB filing a request for an extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Instead, VTB asked for reconsideration of the deadline and requested 61 additional days after filing its motion.

VTB cited possible upcoming meetings with Russian regulators, the possibility that the 2024 United States presidential election could affect regulatory approval, and the discovery stay involving Sberbank. The court denied reconsideration of the deadline. It held that VTB was presenting new facts rather than identifying a proper basis for reconsideration. The court also stated that plaintiffs had already waited more than three years for the documents, that VTB offered no evidence showing that regulatory approval was likely to change, and that the Sberbank stay was already in effect when plaintiffs sought the order compelling discovery.

Disposition

The court denied VTB’s motion for reconsideration and denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike. The opinion also states that VTB later suggested the documents might soon be produced, but the court gave that letter no weight because of VTB’s past inaccurate predictions about actions by Russian authorities.