King v. Habib Bank Limited

Background

The plaintiffs, described as American nationals or surviving family members of American nationals, sued Habib Bank Limited under the Anti-Terrorism Act as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The claims concern attacks in Afghanistan from 2010 through 2019 by a group of terrorist organizations led by al-Qaeda.

In an earlier ruling, Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted in part and denied in part the bank’s motion to dismiss. That ruling dismissed the plaintiffs’ primary liability claims and allowed two secondary liability claims to proceed. Judge Schofield later referred the case to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for general pretrial management.

Discovery Motions

The plaintiffs sought orders compelling the bank to do two things: expand the time period covered by its document collection and search for documents concerning 41 additional individuals and entities. They also sought verified answers to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7(d), and 9. A motion to compel asks the court to require a party to provide discovery that the requesting party says was not adequately provided.

Rulings

Judge Wang granted the plaintiffs’ first motion to compel, requiring the bank to expand the temporal scope of its discovery to include January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2009.

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ second motion to compel. It granted the request that the bank search for documents concerning the 41 individuals and entities. It denied without prejudice, as premature, the request for verified interrogatory responses. “Without prejudice” was the court’s stated term and means that the ruling did not itself bar a later request.

The court denied the bank’s motion for permission to respond to the plaintiffs’ reply. It granted the bank’s motion to seal its March 29, 2023, letter brief and granted the parties’ joint motion to seal the plaintiffs’ April 12, 2023, letter brief. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entries associated with the motions and sealing requests.

Reasons

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court found that the plaintiffs met the relatively low threshold for showing relevance. For the earlier time period, the court relied on the complexity of the terrorist-organization syndicate and investigations of the bank in 2006 by the Federal Reserve System and the New York Department of Financial Services. The plaintiffs also identified why each of the 41 individuals and entities was relevant to their claims.

The court found the bank’s objections insufficient because they relied on general statements about logistical burden, expense, and the number of documents previously reviewed. The bank did not provide enough specific information showing why the additional searches would be disproportionately burdensome. The opinion also notes uncertainty about how many individuals and entities had already been searched and what efforts the bank had made to make its searches more efficient; the court made an assumption about the undisputed group for purposes of its analysis.

Effect of the Order

The order expanded the bank’s document-search obligations and required a search concerning the 41 disputed individuals and entities. It did not grant the plaintiffs’ request for verified interrogatory responses at this stage. The opinion addresses discovery and pretrial management rather than deciding the merits of the remaining secondary liability claims.