Song v. Shinhan Bank America
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-11207
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Song v. Shinhan Bank America, Judge Engelmayer ordered the bank to conduct a thorough discovery search and produce responsive materials.
Shinhan Bank America was ordered to conduct a broader document search, produce responsive materials, file a detailed sworn declaration, and address the confidentiality designation for two meetings’ minutes. Gu Seon Song was to receive the production and participate in the parties’ joint discovery update.
What happened
In Song v. Shinhan Bank America, the court addressed a dispute over the bank’s failure to produce documents requested by Gu Seon Song. The bank had responded generally that it possessed no responsive documents.
The court found that response inadequate because it did not address each request specifically or show that the bank had conducted a thorough search. The court also explained that records held by individual board members could be within the bank’s control because board members act as the bank’s agents.
Judge Engelmayer ordered Shinhan Bank America to search thoroughly, produce responsive materials by December 14, 2022, and file a sworn declaration describing its search. He also ordered the bank to address the confidentiality designation for two meetings’ minutes and directed the parties to report on remaining discovery disputes.
The detailed version
- Song v. Shinhan Bank America · No. 1:21-cv-11207
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 6, 2022
Background
The court received letters from Gu Seon Song and Shinhan Bank America concerning an unresolved discovery dispute. The dispute involved the bank’s failure to produce documents responding to numerous document requests identified in Song’s filing. Shinhan Bank America appeared to state, in a single paragraph, that it did not possess any responsive documents.
Court’s Analysis
The court found the bank’s response inadequate. It did not address each request with specificity and did not give the court confidence that the bank had conducted a thorough search for responsive materials.
The court also rejected the bank’s position that it did not have to produce notes and records held by individual board members because the bank did not possess those documents. The court explained that board members are agents of the bank and that records held by them may be within the bank’s possession, custody, or control. The court stated that documents are under a party’s control when the party has the right, authority, or practical ability to obtain them from someone who is not a party to the case.
Orders
The court directed Shinhan Bank America to urgently conduct a full and thorough search for materials within its possession, custody, and control. It ordered the bank, by Wednesday, December 14, 2022, to produce Song with a complete Bates-stamped set of responsive materials and to file a sworn, detailed declaration from counsel describing the procedures used to locate materials responsive to each category of Song’s requests.
The same declaration was required to address Song’s letter concerning the designation of the minutes of two meetings as confidential. The court then directed the parties, by Monday, December 19, 2022, to file a joint letter stating whether any discovery disputes remained and proposing an amended case-management plan. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 33 and 34.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.