Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank et al v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION NO. 16: The Court, having reviewed Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 16) and having received no objections from the Parties, hereby adopts Report and Recommendation No. 16. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/24/2011) (ft)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ABU DHABI COM!vIERCIAL BANK,
KING COUNTI, WASHINGTON
Together and On Behalf of All Others
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DEFENDj\NTS' MOTION TO COMPEL SEI
IJ'..TVESThIENTS COMPANY TO PRODUCE
"MISSING" E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS
MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL
PLC, MOODY'S INVESTORS
SERVICE, INC, MOODY'S
INVESTORS SERVICE LID.,
STANDARD AND POOR'S RATINGS
SERVICES and THE McGRAW HILL
SHIRA A. SCIIEINDLIN, UNITED STATES Dr~TRICT JLTIGE:
The Court, having reviewed Report & Recommendation No. 16 of the Special Master
217 ), and having received no objections from the Parties, hereby adopts Report
and Recommendation No. 16, and further ORDERS:
1. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff SEI Investments Company
("SEl") shall produce the non-privileged attachments to the 126 e-mails identified by
Defendants in their May 17, 2011 letter and their July 12, 2011 Submission in support of
the present Motion that can be located and produced without undue burden or expense.
2. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, SEI shall (i) identify - by Doc-id/or
Bates number of the parent e-mail and the non-produced attachment(s) - all e-mail
attachments that were reviewed for relevance as part of the e-mail "family" and were
separated and withheld from production on the ground that the attachment was not
relevant to the extent such information is readily available, and (ii) provide such
identification (by list or as otherwise agreed upon) to Defendants.
3. If SEI contends that it cannot (a) locate and produce one or more of the attachments to
the 126 e-mails identified by Defendants without undue burden or expense, and/or (b)
identify one or more withheld attachments with the document identification and
relationship information required in Paragraph 2 above because the information is not
readily available, then SEI shall provide a detailed, written explanation of these burdens,
expenses and unavailability of information to Defendants and the Special Master within
ten (10) days of the entry of this Order.
4. Defendants are permitted to move for the production of additional non-privileged
attachments to relevant e-mails that have not been produced in this case. Any such
motion must be predicated on a demonstration that either (a) the e-mail attachments
produced pursuant to Paragraph 1 above were relevant and reveal that a meaningful
percentage of SEI's relevance determinations were erroneous as to the subset of
attachments to the 126 e-mails identified by Defendants and thus SEI's remaining
relevance determinations with respect to other withheld attachments are not reliable; or
(b) SEI's explanation for why such non-produced, non-privileged attachments cannot be
located or produced '\vithout undue burden or cost is inadequate and should not
preclude further efforts to identify, retrieve and produce such attachments. The Parties
must meaningfully meet and confer in advance of filing any such motion.
5. Finally, the Parties are directed to meet and confer within ten (10) days of the entry of
this Order to address: (a) whether any Parties have been withholding attachments to e
mails from production on the basis of relevance determinations; (b) whether the Parties
are separately identifying e-mails and attachments on privilege logs; (c) the format of the
production or re-production of e-mails and attachments by SEI; and (d) the format in
which SEI will provide any list of e-mail attachments that were reviewed for relevance
and were withheld from production on the ground that the attachment was not relevant.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?