Aasheim v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
- George Daniels
- 1:17-cv-05471
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Aasheim v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Judge Netburn denied reopening discovery and set procedures for expert motions, confidentiality review, and a renewed dismissal motion.
The Ashton Plaintiffs, the other plaintiffs’ Executive Committees, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Dallah Avco, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the other parties involved in the related September 11 litigation.
What happened
Aasheim v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is part of litigation concerning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The court addressed scheduling and case-management issues after setting a schedule for expert-witness challenges and a renewed motion to dismiss.
The court denied the Ashton Plaintiffs’ request for permission to seek additional discovery, finding that jurisdictional discovery had closed and that they had not shown a compelling reason to reopen it. The court also limited each side to one expert-exclusion motion, requested letters about the number of experts to challenge, reminded the parties that filings connected to dispositive motions are generally presumed open to the public, and ordered discussions about confidentiality review. It requested proposals concerning briefing for the renewed dismissal motion and scheduled a conference.
Judge Sarah Netburn issued the March 13, 2023 order. The parties were directed to meet deadlines for letters and to meet with the Federal Bureau of Investigation about confidentiality review; the order did not decide the underlying claims or the anticipated renewed motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Aasheim v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia · No. 1:17-cv-05471
- George Daniels
- Mar. 13, 2023
Background
This order concerns Aasheim v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia within multidistrict litigation about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. On March 2, 2023, the court set a briefing schedule for anticipated motions to exclude expert witnesses and a renewed motion to dismiss. The order also addressed additional disputes concerning discovery, page limits, confidentiality review, and the role of the Ashton Plaintiffs.
Discovery request
The Ashton Plaintiffs sought permission to file a motion to compel additional discovery. The court noted that jurisdictional discovery against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had closed on July 1, 2022. It had previously stated that the declassification of intelligence reports under a September 3, 2021 executive order would not justify extending jurisdictional discovery without extraordinary circumstances. The court found that the Ashton Plaintiffs had not presented a compelling reason to reopen discovery and stated that the plaintiffs had received a fully adequate opportunity for discovery. The court therefore denied the motion for leave to file a motion to compel.
Expert-witness motions
The Plaintiffs’ Executive Committees and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia disputed page limits for anticipated motions to exclude expert testimony. The court stated that it would accept one motion from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Dallah Avco and one motion from the plaintiffs, including any unique experts presented by the Ashton Plaintiffs. The court requested that each side submit a letter by March 22, 2023 identifying the number of experts it intended to challenge. It encouraged challenges that were reasonably likely to succeed or necessary to promote fairness and stated that parties would not waive objections that they might raise later. The court also invited proposals for a reasonable page limit per expert and warned that it might limit the number of challenges if the proposed number was unmanageable.
Confidentiality review
The court reminded the parties that the public is presumptively entitled to documents submitted with dispositive motions. It stated that redactions in connection with the upcoming expert-witness motions would require a compelling justification. The court ordered the defendants, the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committees, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to meet and confer by April 14, 2023 about a confidentiality-review process.
Renewed motion to dismiss and conclusion
The parties also disputed page limits and the Ashton Plaintiffs’ role in briefing the renewed motion to dismiss. The court requested guidance on whether the allegations in the Consolidated Amended Complaint and the Ashton Complaint differed materially, and, if separate briefing was necessary, how to organize it without unnecessary duplication. The parties were directed to meet and confer and submit joint or separate letters by April 5, 2023. They were ordered to appear for a conference on April 11, 2023, unless the court adjourned it after receiving a reasonable agreement.
This was a procedural and case-management order. It did not decide the merits of the claims or the anticipated renewed motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.