Thomas Smedinghoff for the estate of Anne T. Smedinghoff v. Standard Chartered…

Background

The opinion is a letter from the plaintiffs in several related cases, including Smedinghoff, concerning discovery from Standard Chartered Bank ("SCB"). The plaintiffs asked the court to waive the requirement for a pre-motion conference and add Topics 1 and 2 to their pending, fully briefed motion to compel discovery. In the alternative, they requested a new pre-motion conference about those topics.

Topics 1 and 2 concern testimony from an SCB corporate representative about SCB’s relationship with the Fatima Group and the financial services SCB provided to Fatima. The plaintiffs described these subjects as central to their aiding-and-abetting claims. They specifically identified requested information about the client relationship, loans, transaction-clearing services, compliance and due diligence, and SCB’s policies and communications concerning Fatima.

Discovery dispute

The plaintiffs said SCB had repeatedly represented that it would identify and prepare a corporate representative to testify about Topics 1 and 2. They cited statements made in correspondence and during a May 8, 2025 pre-motion conference. According to the plaintiffs, SCB later changed its position and said it would provide the testimony only if it did not also have to answer Interrogatory 8.

Interrogatory 8 seeks a list of the financial services SCB provided to Fatima. The plaintiffs argued that an interrogatory response would provide a list of dates, amounts, and services, while a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)—which permits questioning an organization through a prepared representative—would allow follow-up questions and broader narrative testimony. They also argued that Topics 1 and 2 covered substantial information not requested by Interrogatory 8.

SCB’s position, as described in the attached correspondence, was that the discovery requests were duplicative. SCB said it was willing to provide either an answer to Interrogatory 8 or a corporate representative for Topics 1 and 2, but not both. The opinion presents the parties’ competing positions but does not resolve them.

Court action

The court did not rule in the excerpt on whether SCB must answer Interrogatory 8, provide the requested corporate representative testimony, or do both. The court’s stated action was to direct SCB to respond by July 16, 2025. The excerpt does not specify the content of that response or state a disposition such as granting or denying the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.