King v. Habib Bank Ltd.
King v. Habib Bank Ltd.
2023 WL 3558773 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)
April 21, 2023
Wang, Ona T., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant to expand the temporal scope of its document collection and production, and to search for documents related to 41 individuals and entities. The Court also granted the parties' joint motion to seal Plaintiffs' and Defendant's letter briefs, indicating that the ESI is confidential.
Additional Decisions
KEVIN KING, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
HABIB BANK LIMITED, Defendant
v.
HABIB BANK LIMITED, Defendant
20-CV-4322 (LGS) (OTW)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
Filed April 21, 2023
Counsel
Danielle Nicholson, Ian Micheal Gore, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, Ryan Sparacino, Tejinder Singh, Sparacino PLLC, Washington, DC, Seth D. Ard, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY, Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs Kevin King, Miguel Angel Nathaniel Roberts, Barclay Kamaleson, David Whipple, Douglas A. Landphair, Carlos Benjamin Gross Paniagua, Shannon K. McNulty, Paul Elmer Jayne, Ronald Paul Hopkins, Marta Torres, Gloria Diane Trelfa, Diane Timoney, Jasmine Thomas, Sorainya Harris, Vanessa Marie Anzures, Michelle Carolina Rotelli, Terry Mittler, Angela Kahler, Sean Whipple, Matthias P. Roldan, Michelle Hock, Leeann Schmidt, Shawn Patrick Griffin, Cynthia Nichols, Tiffany Dotson, Stephanie Ann Miller, Donald Edward Newman, Sr., Bob Surprenant, Jerry Hardison, Natasha Buchanan, Martin P. Madden, Gillian Leigh Cabrera, Zachary Douglas Sparks, Michelle Rose McEvoy, Blaine A. Redding, Janice H. Proctor, Karyn Stone Marta, Socorro Gross Paniagua, Martha Looney, Meredith Landphair, Mitchell L. Stambaugh, Maribel Negron, Baily Zimmerman, Barry Welch, Beverly Mills, Jordan Plunk, Cedric Paul Kamaleson, Janice Harriman Bryant, Louella E. Frison, Tracy Bennedsen, Heather L. Reed, Maria Soltero, Alyson Overman Rodgers, Dan Olmstead, Erik Sparks, Susan Novak, Cody Cheyenne Mays, Sunderraj Mark Kamaleson, Tammy Olmstead, Creighton David Osborn, Jane Sparks, Ranee Massoni, Kristie Surprenant, Christopher Powers, Alexander Lee Mittler, Suzanne Renae Martinez, Wendy Shedd, Samantha G. Roldan, Michael Rufus, II, Jordan Lambka, Brian Lambka, Alex Henigan, Garrett Layne Funk, Karma Chisholm, Corbin Cabrera, Samantha Shervon Williams, Patrick Spehar, Marie Sentina Mielke, Phillip J. Schmidt, Jose Negron, Kent Alan Skeens, Pamela J. Madden, Jordan Gilbert, Matthew Elm, Mary Beth Smedinghoff, Matt Griffin, Tina Marie Campbell, Summer Breanne Sutton, Joan M. Smedinghoff, Lorria Welch, Talisa Shervon Williams, Justin T. Plunk, Luann Varney, Lawrence Marta, Carlos Cruz, Brian Gregory Clyburn, Jacob Louis Spehar, Angel R. Roldan, Ryan Gregory Timoney, Brandon Nichols, Georganne M. Siercks, Brandon Tyler Schmidt, Douglas Nichols, Leslie Rodriguez, Joyce L. Turner, Patricia Goins, Charmaine Renee Gilbert, Jannett Cecilia Roberts, Carlos Benjamin Gross Rios, Sr., Robert Cabrera, C. Richard Looney, James A. Gould, Michelle Zimmerman, Sheila Ristaino, Arthur Campbell, Catherine Elm Boatwright, Mark T. Smedinghoff, Freddie Dewey Sutton, Felicia Gross Paniagua, Sherry A. Skeens, Lieselotte R. Roldan, Robert Charles Darrough, Margaret Elm Campbell, Christopher Wayne Johnson, Luke Spehar, Regina C. Smedinghoff, Thomas Elmer Wickliff, Kathleen McEvoy, Jose Aleman, Patrick Charles McEvoy, Prosser, JD, Sonja McDaniel, Kimberley A. Whipple, David Aaron Crow, Zackary Welch, Marvin Negron, Dennis John Elm, Lindsey R. Maldonado, Emmitt Dwayne Burns, Adam Matthew Jayne, Christine Rangel, Glenda Willard, Jessica Novak Cruz, Katherine Abreu-Border, Cristine Mittler, Nicole Kamaleson, Joel C. Cruz, David Reed, Frederick C. Benson, Glenn Chisholm, Martha Carolina Smith, Carol Griffin, Randy Ristau, Christa L. Osborn, Daniel Matias Cabrera, Katlyn M. Osborn, Brian Edward Ellis, Thomas Pierce Mays, Trecia Brock Hood, David L. Parker, Misty Marie Barclay, Kelli Dodge, Abby Knapp-Morris, Janice Caruso, Audrey Campbell, Harriet Sutton, Judith Sara Darrough, Ashley Michelle Harris, Garry Lee Sparks, Linda Reynolds, Gregory Timoney, Erin Nicole Goss, Dana Rainey, Julie Ann Ellis, Amanda Newman, Stephanie Rufus, Lisa Martinusen, Paul Edward Goins, III, Kade M. Osborn, Jan Marie Hurnblad Sparks, Michael Collins, Annette Spehar, Martin E. Madden, Thomas Priolo, Colleen Whipple, William Michael Burley, Felicia Ann Harris, Taylor Marta, Scott Bennedsen, Stephanie Hager, Tammy Renee Mays, Clarence Williams, Jr., Gabriel Negron, Daniel Griffin, Tennyson Charles Harris, Thomas Smedinghoff, Donna Lee Elm, Brandon Korona, Jean S. Landphair, Gustavo Alfonso Soltero, Sr., Suzanne Ristau, Jamie Johanna Coates, Cade Kamaleson, Chris Lee Zimmerman, Evelyn Taylor, Ann L. Gould.Danielle Nicholson, Ian Micheal Gore, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, Ryan Sparacino, Tejinder Singh, Sparacino PLLC, Washington, DC, Seth D. Ard, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs H.R., R.X.C., Abrill Renee Williams-Osbourne, R.G., K.K., G.S., August Cabrera, E.N.R., S.L.B., M.G.C., Z.R.S., S.L.L.B., P.A.D., G.S., B.C.D., Jonathan Cleary, L.A.E.L.B., T.L.S., G.A.S., M.M.
Ryan Sparacino, Tejinder Singh, Sparacino PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Brianna N. Benson, Teresa Hardison.
Danielle Nicholson, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, Ryan Sparacino, Tejinder Singh, Sparacino PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Adrian Carrillo Soltero, Julianna Symkowiak, April Cleary, Victor Raymond Ellis, Shannon Denise Collins, Justina Hardison, Cassie Marie Richardson.
Danielle Nicholson, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, Ryan Sparacino, Tejinder Singh, Sparacino PLLC, Washington, DC, Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff Derrick Anthony Davis.
Mitchell Rand Berger, Alexandra Elizabeth Chopin, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, New York, NY, Benjamin Wood, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Washington, DC, Morgan Alexis Miller, Washington, DC, Jeffrey Walker, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.
Wang, Ona T., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
*1 Plaintiffs, American nationals or surviving family members of American nationals, brought this action against Defendant Habib Bank Limited (“Defendant”) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”) as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism ACT (“JASTA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) and (d), in connection to a series of attacks in Afghanistan in 2010 through 2019 by a syndicate of terrorist organizations led by al-Qaeda (“Syndicate”). (ECF 1 at 1). On September 28, 2022, the Honorable Lorna G. Schofield granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (6). (ECF 58). The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ primary liability claims and allowed the two secondary liability claims to proceed. (ECF 58). On March 10, 2023, Judge Schofield referred this matter to me for general pretrial management. (ECF 98).
Plaintiffs filed requests for pre-motion conferences for two motions to compel: (1) to compel Defendant to expand the temporal scope of its document collection and production (ECF 94); and (2) to compel Defendant to search for documents related to 41 individuals and entities, and to provide verified interrogatory responses for Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7(d), and 9 (ECF 101).[1] The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing on both motions. (ECF 94, 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113).
For the following reasons, Plaintiff's first motion to compel, for Defendant to expand the temporal scope, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's second motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to search for documents related to 41 individuals and entities is GRANTED; Plaintiff's motion to compel verified interrogatory responses is DENIED without prejudice as premature. Defendant's motion for leave to respond to Plaintiff's reply is DENIED. (ECF 111).
The Defendant's motion to seal Defendant's March 29, 2023, letter brief is GRANTED. (ECF 103). The parties’ joint motion to seal Plaintiffs’ April 12, 2023, letter brief is also GRANTED. (ECF 107).
II. DISCUSSION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” “A party may serve on any other party a request” to produce documents within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection” if “a party fails to produce documents ... as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
Relevance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) “is an extremely broad concept.” Trilegiant Corp. v. Sitel Corp., 272 F.R.D. 360, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 100, 105 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). Discovery requests should be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). The party seeking discovery has the burden to demonstrate relevance. See Fort Worth Employees’ Ret. Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 297 F.R.D. 99, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
*2 The responding party may limit discovery even if the discovery is relevant. See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am Ins. Co. of New York, 284 F.R.D. 132, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “Even if the sought-after documents are relevant, the court must limit discovery if the request is ‘unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,’ the requesting party has had ‘ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery,’ or the ‘burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit’ considering the needs of the case and importance of the documents.’ ” Fort Worth, 297 F.R.D. at 102 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)). However, “general and conclusory objections as to relevant, overbreadth, or burden are insufficient to exclude discovery of requested information.” Id. (quoting Melendez v. Greiner, 01-cv-7888 (SAS) (DF), 2003 WL 22434101, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2003)).
Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of showing the relevance of expanding the temporal scope of discovery to include the time period of January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2009. “There is no bright line rule capable of helping a court fix the appropriate look-back period for every case.” In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 03-MD-1570 (GBD) (SN), 2021 WL 5449825, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021). While four years before the date of the first alleged terrorist attack at issue on January 1, 2010, the complexity of the formation of the syndicate of terrorist organizations, and the 2006 investigation of the Defendant by the Federal Reserve System (“FR”) and New York Department of Financial Services (“NY DFS”) meet the “relatively low threshold” needed to show the earlier material is relevant. In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 03-MD-1570 (GBD) (SN), 2018 WL 4237470, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2018). See also In re Terrorist Attacks, 2021 WL 5449825, at *4 (finding January 1, 1998, approximately three and a half years before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, appropriate). The same applies to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to search for documents related to the 41 individuals and entities. Plaintiffs identified the relevance behind each individual and entity to the claims at issue (ECF 108 Ex. A) after Defendant argued that Plaintiff “refus[ed]” to proffer any explanations. (ECF 104).
Defendant's objections are insufficient. Even after the Court ordered supplemental briefing on proportionality (ECF 102), Defendant relies on general claims of an “enormous logistical burden,” a “prolonged, extraordinary effort,” and “enormously expensive” costs to obtain the records because they are not within Defendant's centralized electronic system. (ECF 97, 104). Defendant relied on similar general claims of discovery burdens in objection to the 41 individuals and entities, arguing that 9,600 hours spent reviewing approximately 750,000 documents for prior search terms meant that further discovery would be “punitive.” (ECF 104).
Defendant did not show how the 41 individual and entities in addition to 67[2] would be burdensome with sufficient specificity, particularly considering the actual number of individuals and entities involved and the actual process (undisclosed) taken to search and review documents. Notably, where Courts have denied motions to compel in the cases cited to by Defendant, the number of individuals and entities already searched were higher compared to the case at hand. See Bartlett v. Societe Generale de Banque, 2023 WL 2734641, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023) (95 individuals and entities requested in addition to 592 named in the complaint); Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank, 2022 WL 17730096 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2022) (85 individuals and entities requested in addition to the 15,545 individuals and entities searched by the same parties in a different matter). Finally, voluminous search requirements do not excuse discovery, “particularly in light of the importance of the discovery at issue here and the indisputable fact that [the] Defendant is the singular source for their own internal records.” Bartlett, 2023 WL 2734641 at *8.
*3 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF 94, 100, 101, 103, 107, and 111.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
Plaintiffs initially referred to 42 individuals and entities (ECF 101), but Defendant agreed to search for one of the disputed names, leaving 41 still in dispute. (ECF 108 at 108 n.2).
It is unclear from the briefing exactly how many individuals and entities have already been searched, or whether Defendant has engaged in any attempt to make such search and review more efficient. Defendant argues that Plaintiff requested two groups: 67 persons and entities named in the complaint (“Group 1”), and 254 who were not (“Group 2”). (ECF 104 at 1). Defendant only takes issue with Group 2. (ECF 104 at 1). Plaintiff argues out of Group 2, only 41 individuals and entities are actually at issue. (ECF 108 at 1). The Court assumes the 67 individuals and entities not in dispute in Group 1 have already been searched.