HDI Global Specialty SE v. NBIS Construction & Transport Insurance Services, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : HDI GLOBAL SPECIALTY SE, : : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-1334 (JMF) -v- : : MEMORANDUM OPINION NBIS CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORT INSURANCE : AND ORDER SERVICES, INC., : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

Upon review of NBIS’s letter-motion dated January 7, 2026, and HDI’s response of January 12, 2026, NBIS’s letter-motion to compel is GRANTED as to the items discussed in Sections II (Paul Steer’s Performance Reviews), III (HDI Practices and Procedures), and VI (The Use of Monitoring Counsel), substantially for the reasons set forth in NBIS’s letter-motion. Put simply, the materials and information sought are indeed relevant within the broad meaning of that term in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF), 2016 WL 6779901, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) (“Although not unlimited, relevance, for purposes of discovery, is an extremely broad concept.” (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court reserves judgment on the issue discussed in Section I of NBIS’s letter-motion, namely disclosure of the Morrow Equipment Company claim file. The Court will hold a pretrial conference to address that issue on January 28, 2026, at 2:15 p.m. The parties should join the conference by calling the Court’s dedicated conference line at (855) 244-8681 and using access code 2303 019 3884, followed by the pound (#) key. When prompted for an attendee ID number, press the pound (#) key again. Further, counsel should review and comply with the procedures for telephone conferences set forth in the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, available at https://nysd. uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman, including Rule 3(B)(i), which requires the parties, no later than 24 hours before the conference, to send a joint email to the Court with the names and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Dr., etc.) of counsel who may speak during the teleconference and the telephone numbers from which counsel expect to join the call.

In advance of the conference, and no later than January 27, 2026, each party shall submit a letter, not to exceed three pages, addressing the following:

• Choice of law, namely whether New York, Washington, or federal law applies to the issue (and whether there are material differences among them); e Whether the claim file is subject to attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or both; e Whether Morrow Equipment Company should be given an opportunity to be heard on the issue (and, if so, how); e Whether or to what extent NBIS is already in possession of the Morrow claim file; e Whether the Court should “reserve decision on the disputed assertions of privilege until the privilege has been asserted . . . on a privilege log” in accordance with Rule 26(b)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26.2. Alcon Lab’ys, Inc. v. Pharmacia Corp., 225 F. Supp. 2d 340, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see, e.g., In re Ex Parte Application of Porsche Automobil Holding SE for an Ord. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1782 Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proc., No. 15-MC- 417 (LAK), 2016 WL 702327, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2016) (“Moreover, the Court is in no position to adjudicate this dispute unless and until such time as a privilege log has been produced and challenges to specific privilege designations have been raised”). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2026 New York, New York SSE RMAN ited States District Judge