Galvanizers Company v. London Metal Exchange Limited et al

Filing 35

ORDER terminating (275) Letter Motion for Discovery in case 2:14-cv-03728-PAE: Accordingly, the Court orders that defendants produce responsive, non-privileged documents through February 11, 2016. The Court further orders that defendants search the files of Waszkis and Lucke and produce responsive, non-privileged documents from those custodians. However, the Court denies the additional relief requested by plaintiffs. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/3/2020) (jwh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE: ZINC WAREHOUSING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

14 Civ. 3728 (PAE)
and all related actions
ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
This order resolves four discovery disputes that have arisen in the above-captioned case
with respect to the scope of defendants’ production of documents to plaintiffs. The parties
notified the Court of these disputes after meeting and conferring but reaching an impasse. See
Dkt. 275 (“Pl. Ltr.”); Dkt. 276 (“Def. Ltr.”).
First, plaintiffs seek to extend the end point of the discovery date range from December
31, 2014—which the parties agreed upon in 2016—to February 11, 2016. Plaintiffs argue that
this extension is necessary to bring the discovery date range in line with the class period defined
in their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Pl. Ltr. at 2. Defendants seek to hold plaintiffs to
their previous agreement to a December 31, 2014 document discovery cutoff. Def. Ltr. at 2. On
this issue, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that the proper end date for the production of
responsive documents is February 11, 2016.
Second, plaintiffs request documents from two custodians whose documents were not
previously searched by Defendants—Peter Marc Waszkis and Matthew Lucke. Defendants seek
to hold plaintiffs to a prior agreement to seek documents from a smaller set of custodians.
Plaintiffs have established the relevance of documents it seeks from these custodians, who are
quoted in the TAC, and the additional burden of producing documents from these two custodians

should not be significant relative to the overall discovery in this case. See Pl. Ltr. at 3.
Accordingly, the Court sides with plaintiffs on this issue as well.
Third, plaintiffs seek to have defendants utilize 10 additional search terms to identify
relevant documents for production. Plaintiffs offer little to no explanation of why this discovery
is necessary or merited under the circumstances. Defendants, citing a written October 4, 2016
list of “FINAL” agreed-upon search terms for this litigation, protest the addition of search terms,
in general, and the addition of certain unduly sweeping search terms, in particular. See Def. Ltr.
at 3 & Ex. A. On this issue, the Court agrees with defendants that the search terms—which are
unexplained and would require revisiting previously completed searches and productions—
should not be added.
Fourth, and finally, plaintiffs seek “all documents produced by Defendants herein” in the
In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation MDL, which is also pending before this Court
with some overlapping parties and counsel. Previously, in response to an extensively negotiated
agreement regarding search terms, defendant Access World (USA) LLC re-produced more than
37% of its Aluminum productions to plaintiffs in this litigation. Def. Ltr. at 3. Discovery in the
Aluminum MDL is governed by a protective order, No. 13 MD 2481, Dkt. 381, and the Court
recently denied a motion for modification of that protective order, id., Dkt. 1220. Plaintiffs here
fail to explain why documents from another litigation—which involves a different metal that was
primarily warehoused in a different city and which seeks recovery under a different antitrust
theory—should be transferred wholesale to this litigation. The Court thus sides with defendants
on this issue as well.
Accordingly, the Court orders that defendants produce responsive, non-privileged
documents through February 11, 2016. The Court further orders that defendants search the files

2

of Waszkis and Lucke and produce responsive, non-privileged documents from those custodians.
However, the Court denies the additional relief requested by plaintiffs.

SO ORDERED.

PaJA.�

____________________________
Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge
Dated: February 3, 2020
New York, New York

3