Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale, S.A. et al
||Rio Tinto PLC
||Vale, S.A., BSG Resources Limited, Benjamin Steinmetz, BSG Resources (Guinea) Ltd., BSGR Guinea Ltd. BVI, BSG Resources Guinee SARL, Frederic Cilins, Michael Noy, Avraham Lev Ran, Mamadie Toure and Mahmoud Thiam
||April 30, 2014
||US District Court for the Southern District of New York
||Foley Square Office
||XX Out of U.S.
||Richard M. Berman
|Nature of Suit:
||Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
|Cause of Action:
||18 U.S.C. § 1962
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|March 9, 2016
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has jurisdiction, even post-judgment, to modify the Protective Order. There is good cause for the modification Vale requested, and Thiam has not shown any prejudice from the modification. In the exercise of the Court 39;s discretion, Vale's requested modification is approved. Any objections to this Order must be filed by March 17, 2016. If no objections are filed by that time, Vale can provide the Thiam documents to the LCIA arbitrators. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on 3/9/2016) (tn)
|July 15, 2015
OPINION & ORDER: that, while the Court would have preferred it if the parties had agreed much earlier in this case to the use of a special master for TAR issues, the Court is happy to appoint Ms. Grossman as special master now, and as further set forth in this order. A copy of the Order of Appointment is attached. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on 7/15/2015) (tn)
|March 3, 2015
OPINION & ORDER: The Court has written this Opinion, rather than merely signing the parties' stipulated TAR protocol, because of the interest within the ediscovery community about TAR cases and protocols. The Court is approving the parties 039; TAR protocol, but notes that it was the result of the parties' agreement, not Court order. And as in Da Silva Moore, the Court's approval "does not mean... that the exact ESI protocol approved here will be appropriate in all [or any] future cases that utilize [TAR]. Nor does this Opinion endorse any vendor..., nor any particular [TAR] tool." Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Grp., 287 F.R.D. at 193. Indeed, the Court informed counsel that their stipulated prot ocol was somewhat vague and generic, which is why they felt the need to accompany it with a cover letter to "provide the Court with a brief summary of those [TAR] processes as provided by the parties' respective vendors." (Dkt. No. 181: 2/13/15 Letter to Court, at 1.) With that caveat, for whatever benefit it may be to subsequent cases, the parties' cover letter (Dkt. No. 181) and approved protocol (Dkt. No. 181-1) are attached to this Opinion as an Appendix. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on 3/2/2015) (tn)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?