Aquadrill US Gulf LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-08156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aquadrill US Gulf LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Judge Hellerstein denied BP’s conference request and granted its extension to answer.
Aquadrill US Gulf LLC and the other plaintiffs, whose exhibits were at issue, and BP Exploration & Production, Inc., whose conference request was denied but whose request for more time to answer was granted.
What happened
Aquadrill US Gulf LLC and other plaintiffs petitioned to vacate an arbitration award and attached 74 exhibits that they said made up the arbitration record. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. asked for an emergency conference to seek sealing or removal of some or all of those exhibits.
The court denied BP’s request for a conference because the judge’s rules do not allow letter motions unless specifically authorized. The court said any request for relief had to be made by a narrowly tailored motion addressing only documents likely to prejudice BP. BP also requested more time to answer, through November 5, 2021, and that extension was granted.
Judge Hellerstein entered the order on October 7, 2021. The order did not decide the petition to vacate the arbitration award.
The detailed version
- Aquadrill US Gulf LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08156
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Oct. 7, 2021
Background
Aquadrill US Gulf LLC and other plaintiffs petitioned the court to vacate an arbitration award. Their petition included 74 exhibits, described as the complete arbitration record.
BP Exploration & Production, Inc. sent a letter requesting an emergency conference to seek an order sealing or striking some or all of the exhibits.
Court’s rulings
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied BP’s request for a conference. The court stated that it does not accept letter motions unless its rules or the judge specifically authorize them. The court said that any request for relief had to be made by motion and had to be narrowly tailored to documents likely to prejudice the requesting party. The court cited standards requiring a party seeking to seal documents to provide specific facts showing that sealing is essential to protect important interests and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
BP separately requested an extension of time to answer until November 5, 2021, under Rule 1D of the judge’s Individual Rules of Practice. The court granted that extension.
Effect of the order
This order regulated the case’s procedure. It did not decide whether the arbitration award should be vacated, and it did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.