DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd
- Barbara Moses
- 1:17-cv-04576
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DoubleLine Capital v. Odebrecht Finance, Judge Moses ordered document production and set briefing on a foreign-law protective-order motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants in DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd.; the defendants were required to produce documents and file the protective-order motion, while the plaintiffs were required to respond to that motion.
What happened
DoubleLine Capital LP and other plaintiffs sought an order requiring Odebrecht Finance, Ltd. and other defendants to produce documents. The court held a telephone discovery conference on October 13, 2020, after reviewing the parties’ written submissions.
The order required defendants to produce nonprivileged documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, and 4 by November 12, 2020. It also required the parties to file a protective order and required defendants to seek a protective order concerning Request No. 5 if they claimed foreign law barred production.
Judge Barbara Moses issued the October 14, 2020 order. She set deadlines for the motion, response, and reply concerning Request No. 5 and stated that any claim based on foreign law had to be supported with sufficiently specific information.
The detailed version
- DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd · No. 1:17-cv-04576
- Barbara Moses
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
The court conducted a telephonic discovery conference on October 13, 2020. Before the conference, it reviewed the plaintiffs’ September 1, 2020 letter-motion seeking an order compelling document discovery, the defendants’ opposition, the plaintiffs’ reply, and a joint letter updating the court on developments.
Ruling
For Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the court ordered defendants to produce all nonprivileged responsive documents no later than November 12, 2020. The requests were limited as described in the plaintiffs’ letter-motion and correspondence with defendants. Defendants did not have to produce those documents separately from their responses to the remaining requests and did not have to identify which documents responded to Requests Nos. 1, 3, and 4. If defendants withheld responsive documents based on attorney-client privilege or another privilege, they had to identify and list them as required by Local Civil Rule 26.2.
The court also ordered the parties to file a stipulated protective order as soon as possible before the production. Any disputes about that protective order were to be presented promptly to the court in a joint letter.
For Request for Production No. 5, the court ordered defendants to file their protective-order motion by November 12, 2020. The motion had to include sufficiently particular and specific information allowing the court to determine whether foreign law prohibited the requested discovery. Plaintiffs’ response was due December 14, 2020, and defendants’ reply was due January 8, 2021. Any request for oral argument had to be included in the party’s briefing papers.
Effect of the Order
This was a discovery order addressing document production, privilege logging, and the procedure for asserting that foreign law prevented production. The opinion states that the court gave the reasons for its rulings on the record during the conference, but it does not provide those reasons in the written order. Judge Barbara Moses did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.