GCT New York LP v. Maersk Line A/S
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-03121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In GCT New York v. Maersk Line, Judge Cronan granted defendants’ request for a discovery conference about searches for damages and mitigation documents.
GCT New York LP and defendants Maersk A/S and Hamburg Südamerikanische Dampfschifffahrts Gesellschaft APS & CO KG were required to participate through counsel in the scheduled discovery conference.
What happened
In GCT New York LP v. Maersk Line A/S, the defendants asked the court to address a dispute about electronic document searches. They said GCT refused to search its agreed custodians’ documents using terms concerning its alleged damages and efforts to reduce those damages.
The defendants argued that damages and mitigation were central to the case and that GCT’s financial records, corporate allocations, marketing efforts, and cost reductions were relevant. GCT proposed using the agreed search terms for a limited period and making targeted requests to its finance department.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ request for a discovery conference. He ordered counsel to attend a teleconference on March 5, 2021, and directed the parties to be prepared to discuss discovery disputes raised by GCT as well. The order did not decide which search terms or documents GCT ultimately had to produce.
The detailed version
- GCT New York LP v. Maersk Line A/S · No. 1:20-cv-03121
- John Cronan
- Mar. 3, 2021
Background
The defendants, Maersk A/S, formerly known as Maersk Line A/S, and Hamburg Südamerikanische Dampfschifffahrts Gesellschaft APS & CO KG, asked for an informal conference concerning a discovery dispute. The dispute concerned electronic stored information searches involving GCT New York LP’s agreed custodians.
The defendants stated that the parties had agreed on custodians and joint search terms and were proceeding with document review and production. They said GCT refused to search the custodians’ documents using additional terms related to GCT’s alleged damages and mitigation efforts. “Mitigation” means efforts to reduce claimed losses. The defendants said GCT instead proposed targeted requests to its finance department.
Parties’ Arguments
The defendants argued that damages and mitigation were primary issues in the case. They identified three finance-related custodians and argued that searching those custodians would be necessary to locate documents about damages. They also pointed to financial statements that, in their view, showed corporate allocations among GCT, its parent, and GCT Bayonne. The defendants said those records could bear on GCT’s claimed profit margins and damages.
The defendants also argued that GCT’s statements about the harm caused by the early termination of the parties’ transportation services agreement had changed. They cited GCT’s earlier representation that it could cease to be a going concern and noted that, ten months later, GCT remained a viable business. They said they were entitled to investigate the basis for those earlier statements.
Regarding mitigation, the defendants asserted that GCT had a duty to reduce its damages where practicable. They sought discovery about GCT’s marketing and sales efforts, possible alternative business, labor costs, lease expenses, and other fixed or variable costs that GCT might have reduced after the defendants’ vessels stopped calling at GCT’s terminal in May 2020.
The defendants contended that GCT’s proposal to use the existing joint search terms only for the period after the complaint was insufficient. They said those terms focused mainly on negotiations concerning the transportation services agreement and were not designed to capture documents about damages and mitigation. The opinion does not state GCT’s arguments in detail, but it directs the parties to discuss discovery disputes GCT raised in a separate letter filed at Docket Number 56.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ request for a conference regarding the discovery dispute. He ordered counsel for all parties to appear by teleconference on March 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. He also ordered all parties to be prepared to discuss the discovery disputes raised by GCT in its letter at Docket Number 56.
The order scheduled a conference; it did not resolve the parties’ competing positions about the proposed search terms, the scope of discovery, or the documents GCT was required to produce.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.