Jeddo Coal Company v. Rio Tinto Procurement (Singapore) PTE LTD et al

Filing 92

MEMORANDUM ORDER re: discovery dispute relating to the pltfs efforts to acquire complete copies of Rio Tintos coal supply contracts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on February 8, 2019. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEDDO COAL CO.,
Plaintiff
v.
RIO TINTO PROCUREMENT
(SINGAPORE) PTD LTD., et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil. No. 3:16-CV-621
(Judge Mariani)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This litigation arises from the defendant’s alleged breach of their obligations
to purchase coal from the plaintiff pursuant to a long-term supply agreement.1 (Doc.
73.) According to the plaintiff, Jeddo Coal Company, the parties’ agreement
obligated the defendant, Rio Tinto, to purchase coal from Jeddo in annual quantities
and at defined prices. The original complaint alleges that Rio Tinto anticipatorily
breached its purchase obligations for the year 2016.
The parties are currently engaged in a discovery dispute relating to the
plaintiff’s efforts to acquire complete copies of Rio Tinto’s coal supply contracts

1

There are several defendants in this case, all of which are related Rio Tinto
entities, and for simplicity they shall be referred to singularly as “Rio Tinto” in this
memorandum.

with a Pennsylvania and Russian business from 2016 to the present. This dispute is
outlined in the correspondence counsel have filed with the court. (Docs. 89 and 90.)
Essentially Jeddo proffers that the terms of these agreements are relevant in that they
may help determine the commercial reasonableness of the liquidated damages
provision in its contract with Rio Tinto, and these agreements may further help set
the market price of the coal for loss calculation purposes. Rio Tinto disputes the
relevance of this evidence on the facts of this particular case, and further notes that
the third parties in these other contracts may themselves have objections to the
release of the agreements.
In order to resolve this dispute, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

On or before February 25, 2019, Rio Tinto shall carefully and

comprehensively review the requested agreements in light of the plaintiff’s
proffer of relevance, determine whether the agreements may be released in
whole or in part and ascertain whether its concerns may be mitigated by a
confidentiality agreement between the parties which appropriately limits the
dissemination of information in these agreements.
2.

If following this review Rio Tinto objects to the release of any

portion of the agreements, it shall file a motion for protective order, a brief,
and submit the agreements in redacted and unredacted forms to the court for
its in camera review by February 25, 2019.
2

3.

Rio Tinto shall forthwith notify any other parties to these

agreements of this order so that they may intervene if they choose on or before
February 25, 2019.
4.

On or before March 11, 2019 Jeddo shall respond to any motion

for protective order that may be filed by Rio Tinto.
5.

If the parties resolve this dispute without further assistance from

the court, they shall notify the court.
So Ordered this 8th day of February 2019.

s/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

3