Vega Capital London Limited et al v. Glencore Ltd.

Filing 10

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Transfer Case. For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to terminate all pending motions, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/26/2024) (rro) Modified on 3/27/2024 (rro).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VEGA CAPITAL LONDON LIMITED and ADRIAN
SPIRES,
Movants,

24 Misc. 139 (KPF)

-v.-

ORDER

GLENCORE LTD.,
Respondent.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
This miscellaneous action was initiated on March 22, 2024, with a
motion to compel Glencore LTD. (“Respondent”), to comply with a subpoena
obtained by Vega Capital London Limited (“Vega”) and Adrian Spires (“Spires”)
(the “Movants”), arising out of an underlying lawsuit currently pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. (Dkt. #5
(“Notice of Motion”); 6-7 (accompanying papers). See Mish Int’l Monetary Inc. v.
Vega Capital London, Ltd., et al., No. 20 Civ. 4577 (N.D. Ill.).
The subpoena was issued by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on November 16, 2023, and was served on
Respondent the next day. (Dkt. #2 at 5; Dkt. #3 at Ex. 5). The subpoena seeks
documents and communications from Respondent related to antitrust and
market manipulation claims at issue in the underlying lawsuit, which claims
arise out of crude oil futures contracts. (Dkt. #2 at 1). Respondent has not
appeared in this case and Movants’ motion to transfer the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is unopposed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) provides that “[w]hen the court
where compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a
motion under this rule to the issuing court if the person subject to the
subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances.” With
respect to “exceptional circumstances,” the Advisory Committee's 2013 Note to
Rule 45(f) suggests that “[t]he prime concern should be avoiding burdens on
local nonparties subject to subpoenas,” and that “transfer may be warranted
in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying
litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the
motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory Committee's Notes to 2013 Amendment. “Rule 45(f)
[is] primarily focused on avoiding piecemeal litigation.” Am. Plan
Administrators v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 39 F.4th 59, 61 (2d Cir. 2022)
(holding that an order transferring a motion under Rule 45(f) is not
immediately appealable).
Courts in this District regularly “transfer[] similar motions to the issuing
court where the issuing court is best-positioned to address the subpoena
dispute given the nature of the dispute and the posture and complexity of the
underlying action, where the issuing court has already set out a discovery
schedule in the underlying action, and to serve the interests of justice and
judicial efficiency.” Full Circle United, LLC v. Bay Tek Ent., Inc., 581 F. Supp.
3d 523, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (alteration adopted, internal quotation marks and
citations omitted); see, e.g., Veritiv Operating Co. v. Cent. Nat’l Gottesman, Inc.,
No. 22 Misc. 250 (VB), 2022 WL 17585252, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2022)
2

(transferring motion to compel to the Western District of Kentucky); Honeywell
Int’l Inc. v. Mazars USA LLP, No. 21 Misc. 870 (ER), 2022 WL 94881, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2022) (collecting cases).
Transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois is appropriate in this case. Judge Shah, who is
presiding over the underlying action, is best positioned to adjudicate the
enforcement of this subpoena, especially given the impending considerations of
challenges to the nearly 28 identical subpoenas issued by Movants in that
action, the fact that Judge Shah is actively managing discovery in that action
(which has been pending for more than three years), and the Movants’
representation that the Illinois court is best situated to evaluate objections
regarding relevance, trade secrets, or undue burden at it has access to the
materials filed under seal pursuant to a protective order governing confidential
discovery produced by parties and nonparties in the underlying litigation.
(Dkt. #6 at 5-9). See Google LLC v. Fortress Inv. Grp. LLC, No. 20 Misc. 132
(KPF), 2020 WL 1304039, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020) (observing that
“consistency in rulings and another judge’s prior involvement in the underlying
action [are] reasons for transferring [the] case” (citing Wultz v. Bank of China,
Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 38, 45-47 (D.D.C. 2014))).
The Court also observes that Respondent has not appeared nor has
Respondent articulated any interest in having the motion resolved in this
District. Hilb Grp. of New York, LLC v. Associated Agencies, Inc., No. 23 Misc.
264 (LJL), 2023 WL 5183690, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2023) (transferring
unopposed motion to compel to the Eastern District of New York). Accordingly,
3

the Court “concludes that the judicial economy and consistency considerations
outweigh any potential burden that a transfer may place on [Respondent].”
Drummond Co., Inc. v. VICE Media LLC, No. 21 Misc. 859 (AJN), 2022 WL
445681, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022) (transferring motion to compel
compliance with a Rule 45 subpoena because discovery was complicated and
the court adjudicating the complex underlying action had already ruled on
related discovery issues and was familiar with the facts of the action and their
relation to the subpoena).
For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
terminate all pending motions, and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2024
New York, New York
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

4