Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC
1:19-cv-02985
S.D.N.Y.May 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (the Schansmans) filed suit under the Antiterrorism Act against various financial institutions, alleging they facilitated terrorist activity causing the death of Quinn Lucas Schansman.
- Plaintiffs moved to compel production of documents from defendant VTB Bank PJSC (VTB), located in Russia.
- The Court granted the motion to compel on February 27, 2025, requiring VTB to produce documents within 21 days.
- VTB moved for reconsideration of the Court's ruling and sought modification of the order's scope and deadline, submitting a declaration in support.
- Plaintiffs moved to strike the declaration on grounds of procedural and substantive improprieties.
- The case centers on VTB's production of documents and whether such information can or should be compelled, considering duplicative discovery, foreign law, and delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike declaration | Declaration improperly filed, not permitted by local rules, and references post-decision facts | Discretion allows court to consider it; in any event, affidavit does not affect outcome | Motion to strike denied |
| Availability of alternative means for discovery | No reasonable alternative source for documents requested from VTB | Plaintiffs already obtained some records from third parties; production would be duplicative | Court rejects VTB’s argument; compels production as before |
| Whether order should expressly exclude duplicative records | Plaintiffs need VTB discovery to confirm completeness; can't know if prior disclosures are full | Order should be limited to exclude records already obtained from third parties | Court declines to modify order, finding no error or new argument; reiterates need for production |
| Extension of production deadline | Plaintiffs have waited years; further delay unjust | Ongoing foreign regulatory process and potential geopolitical changes justify more time | Court denies extension request; speculative and untimely reasons insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (articulates standard for motions for reconsideration)
- Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (reconsideration only when intervening law, new evidence, or clear error)
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (motions for reconsideration are not occasions to relitigate issues)