Eton Park Capital Management L.P. v. Argentine Republic

Background

This order concerns two related actions, including Eton Park Capital Management L.P. et al. v. Argentine Republic et al. Argentina asked for a pre-motion conference regarding an anticipated motion to reconsider the Court’s July 29, 2025 decision concerning off-channel communications. The Court treated the request as a motion, treated the plaintiffs’ response as an opposition, and treated Argentina’s second letter as a reply. The opinion also notes that Argentina had filed a separate, recently filed motion for reconsideration.

Argentina argued that the Court had analyzed the discoverability of the communications under international-comity principles while overlooking the threshold question of whether the communications were within Argentina’s “possession, custody, or control.” The plaintiffs opposed the request.

Applicable standards

The Court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally granted only when the moving party identifies controlling law or facts the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. A motion should not be granted merely to relitigate an issue already decided.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1), a party must produce requested documents in its possession, custody, or control. The Court stated that “control” is interpreted broadly and may exist when a party has the legal right or practical ability to obtain documents from a nonparty. The party seeking discovery generally bears the burden of showing control, although that burden may shift when specific evidence supports control. The opinion also discusses authority stating that foreign law may affect whether a party can obtain documents.

Court’s analysis

The parties agreed that Argentina did not have physical possession or custody of the communications. The dispute therefore concerned control. Argentina argued that Argentine law governed the relationship between the Republic and its current and former officials and showed that Argentina lacked control. The plaintiffs argued that United States law governed and that Argentina had control because it could obtain work-related communications, including communications on officials’ personal devices, in the ordinary course of business.

The Court assumed, without deciding, that Argentine law applied and that it could not conduct an international-comity analysis. Even under that assumption, the Court found that Argentina’s argument failed.

First, the Court reviewed Argentine laws, decrees, and resolutions concerning public information, privacy, and communications. It held that those authorities did not foreclose treating officials’ off-channel communications concerning state activity as public information. Whether particular communications qualify would require a factual analysis and a weighing of officials’ protected interests against the public interest in obtaining the information.

Second, the Court stated that even if Argentine law did not classify the communications as public information, Argentina still had the practical ability to obtain them through other legal avenues. The Court identified three possibilities: requesting the officials’ consent, amending the law by statute, or obtaining an order from Argentine courts. The opinion notes that the parties’ experts agreed an Argentine court could order Argentina to access the communications, although one submission stated that such an order would need to be directed to the owners of the devices and personal accounts.

Disposition

The Court concluded that the off-channel communications were within Argentina’s control and DENIED the motion. The Clerk was directed to close specified docket entries in both related actions, including the entry for Argentina’s recently filed motion for reconsideration. The order does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.

Senior United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska signed the order on August 27, 2025.