Jessore Management SA v. Brit Syndicate 2987
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-05849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 31
In Jessore Management SA v. Brit Syndicate 2987, Judge Fox partly granted and partly denied Jessore’s discovery-sanctions motion.
Jessore Management SA received orders requiring the defendant insurers to provide specified discovery. The defendants were required to answer interrogatories, respond to a second document request, disclose documents listed in the deficient privilege log, and produce responsive documents; they were not subjected to the requested adverse-inference or other sanctions based on alleged violations of court orders.
What happened
Jessore Management SA sued Brit Syndicate 2987 and other insurers over coverage for a sailing catamaran lost after its mast broke in rough weather. Jessore asked the court to compel discovery, require disclosure of documents withheld as privileged, and impose sanctions.
Jessore argued that the insurers missed deadlines, failed to answer interrogatories, provided a late and inadequate privilege log, and did not respond to a second document request. The insurers argued that the interrogatories were improper, the requested materials were privileged or protected as work product, and some requests were duplicative or irrelevant.
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted in part and denied in part Jessore’s motion to compel and for sanctions. He ordered the insurers to answer the interrogatories, respond to the second document request, produce documents covered by the deficient privilege log, and produce responsive documents from all defendants, but denied an adverse-inference sanction and other sanctions based on alleged violations of court orders.
The detailed version
- Jessore Management SA v. Brit Syndicate 2987 · No. 1:20-cv-05849
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 3, 2021
Background
Jessore Management SA brought this maritime insurance-policy action after its sailing catamaran was lost in March 2017 when its mast snapped in rough seas and high winds. Jessore moved under Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery relief and sanctions against the defendant insurers. It sought, among other things, an order compelling answers to interrogatories and responses to document requests, production of documents withheld based on attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine, an adverse inference concerning alleged nondisclosure and the insurers’ decision to nullify the policy, and sanctions including striking the defendants’ answer and entering default judgment.
Discovery Disputes
The defendants did not answer Jessore’s December 2, 2020 interrogatories within the required 30-day period. Their later objection that the interrogatories exceeded the scope of the court’s local rule was untimely and was overruled. The court therefore ordered the defendants to answer the interrogatories.
The defendants also served their privilege log several months after asserting privilege objections. The court found the log both untimely and deficient. It did not adequately identify the people listed, their roles and relationships to the litigation, the requests to which the withheld documents responded, or the documents and communications being withheld. It also improperly identified irrelevance as a basis for privilege and failed to adequately explain why certain materials, including documents involving Eric Ogden, were protected. The defendants did not provide enough evidence to establish attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The court therefore ordered disclosure of the withheld documents listed in the privilege log.
The defendants admitted that they had not responded to Jessore’s second request for production of documents. The court rejected their claim that the requests were duplicative, reasoning that at least some requests could seek new, nonduplicative materials. The defendants’ objections based on duplication, attorney-client privilege, and work product were overruled, and the defendants were ordered to respond to the second request.
The court also overruled the defendants’ general objection to producing documents concerning the other subscribing underwriters. The objection did not specifically identify particular requests as duplicative, irrelevant, or unduly burdensome, and the defendants did not support it with legal authority. The court ordered all defendants to produce responsive documents.
Sanctions and Ruling
The court declined to impose an adverse inference or any other sanction based on the alleged failure to comply with earlier court orders. It found that Jessore had not established that the defendants failed to comply with those orders. The court also did not consider Jessore’s request to strike the defendants’ answer because Jessore first raised that relief in its reply, making the request untimely.
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox concluded that Jessore’s motion to compel and for sanctions was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants were ordered to produce the required discovery within seven days of the order.
Read the full 31-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.