Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. US Magnesium LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-03105
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kaiser Aluminum Warrick v. US Magnesium, Judge Koeltl recorded a discovery conference order addressing US Magnesium’s requested protective order and redactions.
Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC and US Magnesium LLC, whose discovery dispute was set for discussion at a February 14, 2023 conference.
What happened
Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC and US Magnesium LLC had a discovery dispute. US Magnesium asked for a protective order covering financial information, environmental matters, and manufacturing activities unrelated to magnesium production. It also sought permission to redact that information from documents containing potentially relevant material.
US Magnesium argued that Kaiser’s requests sought irrelevant financial records and other unrelated operational information. The parties discussed the issue but did not resolve it. US Magnesium asked the court to address its request together with Kaiser’s motion to compel.
In Kaiser Aluminum Warrick v. US Magnesium, Judge Koeltl’s order did not grant or deny the requested protective order. The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the letter at a February 14, 2023 conference and asked the clerk to close two conference-request motions.
The detailed version
- Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. US Magnesium LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03105
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 8, 2023
Background
US Magnesium LLC submitted a letter requesting a pre-motion conference about a proposed protective order. The request concerned financial information, environmental issues, and manufacturing activities unrelated to magnesium production. US Magnesium made the request in connection with Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC’s motion to compel discovery.
US Magnesium argued that Kaiser sought financial statements, general ledgers, trial balances, and other information unrelated to the claims and defenses in the case. It also described management reports and engineering reports that contained potentially relevant information about magnesium production or equipment problems, but also included information about other operations, environmental matters, and financial affairs.
Parties’ Positions
US Magnesium argued that pretrial discovery of its financial condition was not relevant and that irrelevant information could be redacted from documents containing discoverable material. It offered to submit documents for the court’s private review to ensure that proposed redactions were not excessive. The parties held meet-and-confer discussions on January 30 and February 7, 2023, but did not resolve the redaction dispute.
Court’s Action
The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss US Magnesium’s letter at the February 14, 2023 conference. The court also noted that the upcoming conference would address letter motions at ECF Nos. 60 and 68 and requested that the clerk close those motions. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the proposed protective order, ruled on the requested redactions, or decided Kaiser’s motion to compel.
Outcome
The order was a discovery-related procedural order. It scheduled discussion of the dispute rather than deciding the parties’ underlying discovery positions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.