Zurich American Insurance Company, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., et al.

Background

The court considered a joint letter concerning several discovery disputes. Discovery is the pretrial process through which parties obtain information relevant to their claims and defenses.

Rulings

Interrogatory No. 5

The court ordered Chevron, on or before December 10, 2025, to identify all third parties with whom it communicated about the seizure, as the court had previously ordered. The court rejected Chevron’s argument that identifying third parties involved in non-substantive communications would impose an undue burden. The court also ordered Chevron’s witness designated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to be prepared to discuss those communications.

Geopolitical discovery

The court ordered Chevron to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about the Geopolitical Risk Unit’s assessment of the Gulf of Oman and its reports to the CMT. The court stated that it had previously ruled this discovery relevant.

Zurich Marine Piracy Claims Protocol

The excerpt includes the heading for this issue and a fragment stating that the material must be relevant to a claim or defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The provided text does not contain enough of this section to determine the court’s specific ruling on that issue.

Underwriting guidelines

The court denied Chevron’s request for Zurich’s underwriting guidelines. Although the court rejected Zurich’s argument that the request was too late, it held that Chevron had not explained how the guidelines were relevant to a claim or defense. The court noted that Chevron had already taken Zurich’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition but had not identified anything from that deposition showing the guidelines’ relevance. The court stated that Chevron therefore had not met its burden of showing relevance.

The court stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 165-1.