United States District Court, S.D. New York
June 1, 2004.
OS RECOVERY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, -against- ONE GROUPE INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge
In what long has been par for the course in this litigation, counsel
again are unable to conduct discovery in a reasonable fashion without
extensive court involvement. One say writes a letter complaining of
discovery failures by the other. The accused party respond by attacking
the writer of the first letter for failure to make discovery in response
to requests by the accused party and claiming that the first letter is
shot through with falsehoods and half-truths. This provokes a reply. And
rarely does anyone come to grips with the merits of the discovery
The latest round began with a letter dated May 20, 2004 from counsel
for defendant Parex Bank. The issues raised therein are disposed of as
1. The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Parex shall take place in Stockholm,
Sweden, or such other location as the parties may agree upon in writing.
2. The "Doe" plaintiffs' objections to Parex's First Set of
Interrogatories to and First Request for Production of Documents by them
are largely frivolous. For example,
a. They object to discovery "to the extent that [it]
request[s] information, the disclosure of which would
violate the privacy rights of individuals,
confidentiality agreements, arrangements or
understandings between Plaintiffs and any other person
. . ." But there has been no showing that any of the
requested discovery would do so, much less that this
would be a legally sufficient basis for objection even
if it did.
b. They raise privilege objections without complying
with S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 26.2. c. The raise burden and vagueness objections without
making any showing of burden or articulating any
d. They offer to answer certain interrogatories, in
part, only following the entry of a confidentiality
order limiting disclosure of information to counsel of
record. But they ignore the fact that they entered
into a stipulated confidentiality order that was
approved by the Court on February 25, 2003. While that
order allows disclosure of confidential information
beyond counsel of record, there has been no showing
that the protection it affords would be inadequate or
that plaintiffs made any effort to work out more
extensive protection with Parex.
e. They are replete with relevancy objections, but
no serious effort has been made to substantiate those
Although the conclusion is unnecessary to the result, these and other
examples that might be cited convincingly demonstrate that plaintiffs
have interposed these objections for the purpose of delay
Accordingly, all of the objections are overruled. The Doe plaintiffs
shall answer all interrogatories propounded to them, under oath, and
produce all responsive documents on or before July 6, 2004.
3. The Court will not tolerate further obstructionism by any party. Any
failure to comply with this or any other order of this Court may result
in the imposition of sanctions, which may be case dispositive.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.