Seawolf Tankers Inc. v. Laurel Shipping LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:20-cv-05198
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Seawolf Tankers v. Laurel Shipping, Judge Aaron denied Seawolf’s request to delay expert-report production and ordered production under confidentiality restrictions.
Seawolf Tankers Inc. had to produce the Vitol Reports to Freepoint Commodities Singapore Pte Ltd. and Freepoint Commodities LLC. The production was subject to confidentiality protections recognizing Vitol S.A.’s interest in the reports.
What happened
In Seawolf Tankers Inc. v. Laurel Shipping LLC, Seawolf asked the court to pause part of an earlier order requiring it to produce reports prepared by its testifying expert, Elizabeth Bossley. Seawolf said Bossley had agreed with Vitol S.A. not to disclose two reports and had not received Vitol’s consent.
The court ruled that a confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement does not excuse discovery obligations. Because Bossley was Seawolf’s testifying expert, the court held that Seawolf could not rely on Bossley’s agreement with Vitol, which was not a party to the case, to withhold the reports.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Seawolf’s request and ordered Seawolf to produce the reports to Freepoint by January 26, 2024. The reports had to be marked for attorneys’ or experts’ eyes only under the case’s protective order, and Freepoint had to give Vitol’s solicitors seven days’ notice before seeking to make nonpublic portions public.
The detailed version
- Seawolf Tankers Inc. v. Laurel Shipping LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05198
- Stewart Aaron
- Jan. 23, 2024
Background
The court had previously ordered Seawolf to produce Freepoint Commodities Singapore Pte Ltd. and Freepoint Commodities LLC (collectively, “Freepoint”) certain reports, transcripts, and witness statements in the possession of Seawolf’s testifying expert, Elizabeth Bossley. The materials concerned matters in which Bossley had been involved as an expert or had testified regarding claims involving delays to crude oil or refined petroleum products.
Seawolf asked the court to hold in abeyance—that is, temporarily pause—the part of the earlier order requiring production of two reports Bossley had prepared for Vitol S.A. in another matter. Seawolf explained that Bossley’s agreement with Vitol restrained her from disclosing the reports and that Vitol had not consented to disclosure. The court separately noted that Seawolf’s request concerning publicly available testimony was mooted after Seawolf filed a transcript of Bossley’s testimony.
Legal standard
The court explained that a confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement does not create a privilege against discovery and does not otherwise permit a party to avoid its discovery obligations. A protective order can protect confidential information during litigation.
Discussion
The court held that Bossley’s agreement with Vitol was not a valid basis for refusing to produce the reports under the earlier order. Bossley was Seawolf’s testifying expert and therefore had discovery obligations on Seawolf’s behalf. She could not avoid those obligations based on a nondisclosure agreement with Vitol, which was not a party to the action.
The court nevertheless recognized Vitol’s contractual rights and interest in confidentiality. It ordered that the reports be produced with the designation “For Attorneys’ or Experts’ Eyes Only” under the case’s Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order. If Freepoint later sought to make public any part of the reports that was not already public, Freepoint also had to provide seven days’ advance notice to Vitol’s solicitors, in addition to following the protective order.
Disposition
The court denied Seawolf’s request to hold the production requirement in abeyance. It ordered Seawolf to produce the Vitol Reports to Freepoint no later than January 26, 2024, subject to the stated confidentiality restrictions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.