The case involves a dispute between Plaintiffs 777 Partners LLC and Suttonpark Capital LLC (the
"Plaintiffs") and Defendants Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP and Leadenhall Life Insurance Linked
Investment Fund PLC (the "Leadenhall Defendants") regarding the discovery process. The Plaintiffs filed
a motion to compel supplemental document discovery from the Leadenhall Defendants, claiming that the
documents provided were insufficient. The case, which involves allegations of computer intrusions and
unauthorized data access, has been mired in discovery disputes since its inception. Despite a relatively
straightforward case, the discovery process has been fraught with delays and non-compliance from both
parties, especially the Plaintiffs.

The Court had previously set discovery expectations and deadlines, including a cutoff date for March 20,
2025, and a trial date in June 2025. However, instead of adhering to these deadlines, both parties have
engaged in numerous last-minute motions, delayed production, and failed to cooperate in good faith. The
Court noted that the Plaintiffs were particularly at fault, as they filed a series of motions after the
discovery cutoff date and failed to work collaboratively with the Defendants during the discovery process.
This led to the Court issuing numerous orders and holding multiple hearings to address the persistent
discovery issues.

The Plaintiffs' motion, filed on March 20, 2025, sought additional document production and searches
from the Leadenhall Defendants. However, the Defendants argued that the motion was untimely, citing
the 28-day deadline under local rules, and that they had already conducted a thorough search and
provided the necessary documents. The Leadenhall Defendants claimed that the Plaintiffs’ motion was
meritless, as they had already produced responsive documents. The Plaintiffs countered by stating that the
motion was timely because the Defendants never served a Notice of Completion of Production, which
they argued extended the period for filing a motion.

In considering the motion, the Court highlighted that both parties had failed to follow discovery protocols
and had exacerbated the situation by being uncooperative. The Court particularly criticized the Plaintiffs
for waiting until the last minute to raise the issues, further complicating an already contentious discovery
process. Despite the Plaintiffs' arguments, the Court found that their motion was untimely and that they
had not demonstrated good cause for why the Court should allow the late motion. The Court also
emphasized that the Plaintiffs were responsible for their lack of discovery compliance, noting that they
had received the documents they were entitled to.

Ultimately, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to compel and declared that discovery in the case was
now closed. The decision was based on the Plaintiffs' delays and non-compliance with discovery rules,
and the Court found no reason to extend the discovery process further. The Court's ruling marked the
conclusion of the discovery phase, and the case is now set to proceed to trial in June 2025.

If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of
the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using
advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and
information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically
stored information (ESI). Reach out to Shari Coltoff at CODISCOVR for more information. Shari has
over 20 years of experience in the ever-evolving eDiscovery life cycle, from document collection to
managing large long-term reviews through productions.