Fleetzero Inc. v. Atlantic Oceanic LLC

Background

Fleetzero Inc. brought this case under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims. Atlantic Oceanic LLC moved for a protective order and to quash, or cancel, interrogatories that Fleetzero served on FIO Advisors LP, a third party.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Atlantic Oceanic had to comply with the meet-and-confer requirement before asking for discovery relief. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) requires a party or person seeking a protective order to follow that procedure. Atlantic Oceanic’s motion expressly invoked Rule 26(c), and the court also noted that the judge’s Individual Rules and Practices independently require a party raising a discovery dispute to confer in good faith with the opposing party.

The court rejected Atlantic Oceanic’s argument that the requirement should be waived because of possible undue prejudice. It reasoned that any prejudice would result from disclosure, not from the meet-and-confer process. The court also rejected Atlantic Oceanic’s conclusory assertion that meeting and conferring would be futile.

The parties were directed to meet and confer to narrow or resolve their disputes. The court noted that Fleetzero did not dispute that its discovery was limited to property of Atlantic Oceanic considered under applicable law to be located within the Southern District of New York. The court also noted that Fleetzero had provided some basis for believing that FIO Advisors might have information about accounts within the district that could be considered Atlantic Oceanic’s property. Further discovery could provide information about whether FIO Advisors possessed Atlantic Oceanic’s property within the district and, consequently, whether jurisdiction was proper.

Because the court did not reach the merits of Atlantic Oceanic’s motion, it did not decide Fleetzero’s arguments about Atlantic Oceanic’s standing. The court nevertheless observed that a party whose banking records are subpoenaed generally has standing to assert a privacy interest in personal financial affairs, but that standing does not extend to general objections based on relevance or undue burden.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Atlantic Oceanic’s motion without prejudice to renewal if Atlantic Oceanic complied with the discovery-dispute procedures in the judge’s Individual Rules and Practices, the court’s Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 8.