Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:22-cv-03476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tang Capital Partners v. BRC Inc., Judge Lehrburger denied BRC’s request for a pre-motion conference about disputed discovery.
Tang Capital Partners, LP and BRC Inc.; the order denied BRC’s requested court involvement in the described discovery disputes.
What happened
Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc. involved BRC’s request for court involvement in three discovery disputes. BRC said Tang had refused to provide information about industry practices, had inadequately collected and reviewed text messages, and had withheld information about Tang’s members, partners, investors, and other warrant holders.
BRC argued that this information could relate to the parties’ disagreement about registering warrants and warrant shares, Tang’s alleged damages and investment strategies, and Tang’s knowledge of relevant practices. BRC also asked for steps concerning text messages from particular custodians and deleted messages.
The court denied the requested relief for substantially the reasons stated in Tang’s response at docket 90. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered the order on July 21, 2023.
The detailed version
- Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03476
- Robert Lehrburger
- July 21, 2023
Background
The provided text is a letter from defendant BRC Inc. asking for a pre-motion conference before filing a motion to compel discovery. BRC said plaintiff Tang Capital Partners, LP had refused or failed to provide several categories of discovery. The letter states that the parties had exchanged letters and emails and had repeatedly conferred by telephone but had not resolved their disagreements.
Discovery disputes described by BRC
BRC sought discovery concerning custom and practice in similar de-SPAC transactions involving warrants. BRC stated that Tang alleged a Form S-4 was sufficient to register both warrants and the shares underlying them, while BRC maintained that the generally used approach was to register the warrants on one form and later register the warrant shares on a Form S-1. BRC argued that information about Tang’s awareness of this practice was relevant to the parties’ dispute.
BRC also alleged that Tang did not follow an agreed process for collecting, reviewing, and producing text messages. According to BRC, Tang used an employee without legal training or discovery experience to review messages, produced screenshots, did not collect messages from one custodian, and did not adequately investigate deleted messages from another custodian. BRC requested additional collection and review, collection of messages from the first custodian, and an accounting of efforts to recover deleted messages. BRC also requested discovery about Tang’s communications and dealings with other investors, including Tang’s members or partners and other holders of BRC warrants.
Ruling
The court denied the requested relief. The order stated that the denial was based substantially on the reasons set forth in Tang’s response at docket 90. The provided text does not include that response or give a more detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning. The order concerned discovery and pre-motion procedures; it did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute about warrant registration.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.