Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-03773
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Manbro Energy v. Chatterjee Advisors, Judge Schofield ordered Manbro to respond to defendants’ request for permission to seek discovery, without deciding that request.
Manbro Energy Corporation was ordered to respond by June 1, 2021. Defendants sought permission to pursue additional discovery, but the court did not yet decide that request.
What happened
Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC involved defendants’ request for permission to file a motion seeking additional documents and communications from Manbro and its investment adviser, Parkwood LLC. The request concerned discovery in the parties’ ongoing case.
Defendants’ counsel said recent depositions revealed documents about Manbro’s investment in WPPE, Parkwood’s similar investments and policies, and public-relations efforts related to the lawsuit. Defendants argued that the requests were timely and relevant. According to the letter, Manbro refused to produce the materials, mainly arguing that the requests were too late.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Manbro to file a response to defendants’ letter by June 1, 2021. The order did not decide whether defendants could file a motion to compel or whether Manbro had to produce any documents.
The detailed version
- Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03773
- Lorna Schofield
- May 27, 2021
Background
On May 26, 2021, defendants’ counsel asked the court for permission to file a motion to compel discovery from plaintiff Manbro Energy Corporation and its investment adviser, Parkwood LLC. The request followed depositions of three Manbro witnesses conducted on April 22, April 27, and May 3. Defendants’ counsel asserted that those depositions revealed documents that had not been produced, including materials concerning Manbro’s investment in WPPE, similar investments made by Parkwood, Manbro’s investment policies and strategies, and communications with public-relations advisers.
According to defendants’ letter, document requests and interrogatories were served on Manbro on May 10 and 11, and a subpoena was served on Parkwood on May 11. Defendants contended that the requests were made before the May 28 fact-discovery deadline and that many of the documents were already covered by discovery requests served in September 2020. They also argued that a two-week discovery standstill and delays in scheduling depositions supported their position that the requests were timely. The letter stated that Manbro refused to produce responsive documents or respond to the requests, primarily because it considered them untimely.
The Court’s Action
The court did not rule on the merits of defendants’ proposed motion to compel. Instead, the order directed plaintiff to file a response to defendants’ letter seeking permission to move to compel by June 1, 2021. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order on May 27, 2021. The text provided does not state that the court granted or denied permission to file the motion, ruled on any discovery objection, or ordered production of documents.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.