Forgot your password?
Please enter your email & we will send your password to you:
My Account:
Copyright © International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). All rights reserved. ( Source of the document: ICC Digital Library )
1996 LC CASE SUMMARIES 93 Civ. 5298 (LMM)(RLE), 93 Civ. 8270 (LMM)(RLE), 94 Civ. 1317 (LMM)(RLE), 93 Civ. 6876 (LMM)(RLE), 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6503 (S.D. N.Y. 1996)
Topics:
Discovery.
Type of Lawsuit:
Not indicated, Pretrial Discovery Motion.
Principals:
Plaintiff: Bank Brussels Lambert;
Defendants: The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Banque Paribas Credit Lyonnaise (Suisse) S.A.
Underlying Transaction:
Finance of oil trading companies.
LC:
Third party credit. Silent as to whether subject to UCP.
Procedural History:
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Ellis, M.J., denied the motions to compel answers and production of documents and impose sanctions and also denied the cross-motions to terminate depositions and impose sanctions. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a protective order.
Rule:
Defendant cannot compel the production of documents demonstrating that the plaintiff issued third-party credits unrelated to the litigation where the existence of the third-party credits was not in dispute.
Article
Factual Summary: Defendant, in a discovery proceeding that combined several lawsuits, sought discovery of documents that would demonstrate that the plaintiff banks normally engaged in the issuance of third-party letters of credit (letters of credit in the name of a party other than the applicant). These documents would prove that it was standard practice to issue such credits and that no inference of fraud should follow from third-party credits. Plaintiffs argued that their use of third party credits was irrelevant since they had not relied on defendant's third party credit when they agreed to extend financing in this case.
Legal Analysis:
1. Discovery: The court noted that to obtain discovery of the requested material, the defendant had to show a nexus to the issues in the case. While the defendant had shown that third-party credits were an important issue, it had failed to show that there was a dispute over the existence of such instruments. Moreover, the court noted that even if their existence was in dispute, there were more preferable ways to demonstrate their existence than to open up the files of the opposing parties. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant's motion to compel production of documents.
©1997 INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE
COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE
The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.