Reynolds Consumer Products LLC v. Glencore AG

Background

Reynolds Consumer Products LLC and Southwire Company, LLC asked the court to compel Glencore Ltd. to provide information about the sources of aluminum Glencore sold to them. The request concerned Interrogatory No. 8, which plaintiffs served on February 4, 2020. Glencore objected on March 5, 2020. Fact discovery closed on July 15, 2020, but plaintiffs filed their request to compel on August 14, 2020.

Plaintiffs said they understood Glencore’s objections to deny that Glencore possessed the requested information. They argued that depositions of two Glencore employees on the last and next-to-last days of discovery showed that Glencore possessed information about the sources of its aluminum purchases.

Parties’ Positions

Glencore argued that its objections did not deny possession of information about its own aluminum purchases. Instead, Glencore said its objections challenged the use of an interrogatory under Southern District of New York Local Rule 33.3(b). That rule generally limits interrogatories seeking information beyond specified categories unless an interrogatory is a more practical way to obtain the information than a document request or deposition. Glencore’s position was that the requested transactional information should have been sought through a request for production, meaning a request for documents or other recorded information.

Glencore also said that any objection concerning lack of possession, custody, or control applied to transactional data held by its affiliates, not to information about Glencore’s own purchases. It argued that plaintiffs had been aware of this distinction before discovery closed and had never served a request for production.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed with Glencore. It held that Glencore’s objections could not fairly be read as denying possession of information about the sources of Glencore’s own aluminum purchases. Instead, the court read the objections as directing plaintiffs to seek that information through a request for production because that method was more practical than an interrogatory.

The court said that if plaintiffs disagreed with this objection, they needed to challenge it before discovery closed rather than wait until after the deadline. The court also found that the late deposition testimony did not justify reopening the issue because it did not contradict Glencore’s earlier representations. The court rejected plaintiffs’ other arguments, including their reference to Glencore’s own interrogatories and their assertion that Interrogatory No. 8 complied with the rule concerning contention interrogatories.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety. It also stated that, in light of its ruling, there was no basis at that point to prevent Glencore from introducing evidence about the origin of metal it sold to plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions pending at dockets 179–80.

This was a discovery ruling about the timing and method of seeking information, not a decision on the ultimate antitrust claims.