Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-08012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Serifos Maritime v. Glencore, Judge Schofield ordered a response and conference about disputed document discovery.
The order affected Serifos Maritime Corporation, Andros Maritime Agencies Ltd., and Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd. by requiring further efforts to address their discovery dispute and setting a court conference.
What happened
Serifos Maritime Corporation and Andros Maritime Agencies Ltd. asked the court to address a discovery dispute with Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd. The dispute concerned redacted documents, later notices of contaminated-fuel claims, and Glencore’s internal communications.
The plaintiffs said Glencore had redacted about 400 of approximately 1,660 produced pages based on relevance and had not produced certain claim notices or communications. They asked the court to require further production, subject to redactions allowed by the protective order.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Glencore to respond to the plaintiffs’ letter by the deadline stated in the order and scheduled a telephone conference for August 2, 2023. The parties were also ordered to meet again, and the court said the discovery deadline would not be extended without a showing of diligence.
The detailed version
- Serifos Maritime Corporation v. Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd · No. 1:22-cv-08012
- Lorna Schofield
- July 28, 2023
Background
Counsel for Serifos Maritime Corporation and Andros Maritime Agencies Ltd. submitted a letter requesting a pre-motion conference about discovery disputes with Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd. The letter said the parties had exchanged discovery responses, conducted multiple meet-and-confer sessions, and resolved many issues but had reached an impasse on several matters.
The plaintiffs asserted that Glencore had produced approximately 1,660 pages, with about 400 pages wholly or partially redacted. According to the plaintiffs, Glencore had relied on its own view that the information was irrelevant or commercially sensitive. The plaintiffs argued that relevance was not a permitted basis for redacting otherwise responsive documents under the protective order or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while commercially sensitive information could be handled under the protective order.
The plaintiffs also sought documents concerning notices of claims for contaminated fuel received after March 12, 2022. They argued that information about later claims could bear on their allegations concerning Glencore’s knowledge of contaminated fuel, its response, and any duty to warn. Finally, they said Glencore had produced very few internal communications about the contamination event and Glencore’s response, and had not yet provided a promised privilege or redaction log for a later production.
Court’s Action
The court did not decide whether Glencore was required to produce the disputed documents or whether the plaintiffs’ discovery arguments were correct. Instead, Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed Glencore to respond to the plaintiffs’ letter, with the response limited to three pages, by the deadline stated in the order. The court scheduled a telephone conference for August 2, 2023, at 4:30 p.m., and ordered the parties to meet and confer again before the conference. The conference would be canceled if the parties resolved the issues beforehand. The court also reminded the parties that the discovery deadline would not be extended without a showing of diligence.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.