Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered PLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered, Judge Ramos directed Standard Chartered Bank to respond by July 16 to plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery.
The plaintiffs in Bonacasa, Moore, and Smedinghoff, and Standard Chartered Bank, regarding discovery about SCB’s relationship with Fatima and its financial services to Fatima.
What happened
In Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered, the plaintiffs asked the court to require Standard Chartered Bank to provide a corporate representative for testimony about its relationship with Fatima and the financial services it provided to Fatima. They said this information was relevant to their claims that the bank aided and abetted explosive-device attacks.
The plaintiffs argued that this testimony should occur even if the court separately required the bank to answer Interrogatory 8, which sought a list of financial services provided to Fatima. The bank’s position, as described in the filing, was that it would provide either the interrogatory response or the corporate testimony, but not both.
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide the discovery dispute in this order. Instead, he directed Standard Chartered Bank to respond by July 16, 2025, to the plaintiffs’ July 9 filing.
The detailed version
- Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered PLC · No. 1:22-cv-03320
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 11, 2025
Background
The filing concerns discovery in Bonacasa v. Standard Chartered Bank and related cases. The plaintiffs asked the court to waive the requirement for a pre-motion conference and add Topics 1 and 2 to their pending motion to compel discovery from Standard Chartered Bank, which the filing calls “SCB.” In the alternative, they requested a new pre-motion conference.
Topics 1 and 2 seek testimony from a corporate representative about SCB’s client relationship with Fatima and the financial services SCB provided to Fatima. The filing states that the plaintiffs’ claims allege SCB aided and abetted explosive-device attacks by providing significant financial services to Fatima. The requested testimony would cover matters including the relationship’s size and growth, loans and transaction-clearing services, due diligence, compliance issues, and documents and communications concerning the relationship.
Parties’ positions
The plaintiffs said SCB had repeatedly represented that it would designate a witness for Topics 1 and 2, including during a May 8, 2025, conference with the court. They said SCB later changed its position and would provide the testimony only if the court did not require an answer to Interrogatory 8.
Interrogatory 8 seeks a list of the financial services SCB provided to Fatima. The plaintiffs argued that the interrogatory and the deposition testimony were different forms of discovery: the interrogatory would obtain a list, while the deposition would allow follow-up questions and broader narrative testimony. SCB’s position, as reported in the filing and attached emails, was that the discovery was duplicative and that it would provide either an answer to Interrogatory 8 or a witness for Topics 1 and 2, but not both.
Court action
The filing asks the court to order SCB to provide the corporate representative testimony in addition to answering Interrogatory 8, or to schedule another pre-motion conference. The signed order does not grant or deny that requested relief. Instead, Judge Edgardo Ramos directed SCB to respond by July 16, 2025.
The text provided does not include a later ruling on whether SCB must answer Interrogatory 8 or provide testimony on Topics 1 and 2.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.