Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-09786
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Novoriver v. Argentine Republic, Judge Preska required the Argentine Republic to respond to Novoriver’s request to shield an individual’s identity from the Republic itself.
Novoriver S.A.; the Argentine Republic; and the individual identified in the letter as Novoriver’s president and director, whose name Novoriver sought to disclose only to the Republic’s outside counsel.
What happened
In Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic, Novoriver asked the court for permission to disclose the identity of its president and director only to the Republic’s outside lawyers, not to the Republic itself. Novoriver said the individual feared retaliation because of involvement in the case.
Novoriver argued that protecting the identity would prevent embarrassment, pressure, or harm and would not interfere with the Republic’s defense because its lawyers could receive the information. The letter says the Republic opposed the request and called the retaliation concerns unsubstantiated.
Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the Republic to submit a response by January 14, 2022. The submitted text does not show whether the court ultimately granted or denied the requested protective order.
The detailed version
- Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic · No. 1:19-cv-09786
- Loretta Preska
- Jan. 11, 2022
Background
The submitted record is a January 10, 2022 letter from Novoriver S.A.’s lawyer requesting a pre-motion discovery conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 and the judge’s individual practices. The letter concerns an interrogatory asking Novoriver to identify people with knowledge of its acquisition of beneficial holdings in GDP-linked securities.
Novoriver had identified an individual by title as its president and director but withheld the person’s name while seeking agreement to disclose it on an “outside counsel only” basis. That arrangement would allow the Republic’s United States outside counsel at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP to see the identity but would not disclose it to the Argentine Republic itself. The letter states that the Republic had refused to agree and had said the parties were at an impasse.
Parties’ Positions
Novoriver argued that a protective order—a court order limiting discovery disclosure—was justified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) to protect the individual from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. Novoriver described the individual as an Argentine national who allegedly had a credible fear of economic and other retaliation by the Argentine Republic because of the person’s association with the litigation.
Novoriver cited reports about alleged reprisals against people who investigated or opposed Argentine officials and cited prior cases involving restricted disclosure of witness identities or other sensitive information. Novoriver also argued that the Republic had not shown a legitimate need for the Republic itself to know the person’s name because its outside counsel could review the information and prepare the defense.
The letter states that the Republic characterized the retaliation concerns as “completely unsubstantiated.” The submitted text does not include a written response from the Republic explaining its position in greater detail.
Court’s Action
The court ordered: “The Republic shall submit a response on or before January 14, 2022.” The order is signed “SO ORDERED” and dated January 11, 2022. It does not decide whether the requested outside-counsel-only protective order should be issued, and the submitted text does not state a later disposition of that request.
Result
The only ruling shown is an order requiring the Argentine Republic to respond by January 14, 2022. The record does not show that the court granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part Novoriver’s request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.