Bank Brussels Lambert v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
Unites States District Court for the Southern District of New York
175 F.R.D. 34 (1997)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
A group of lenders (Bank Group) sued borrowers for fraud related to a revolving credit agreement. Before and during the suit, significant financial discrepancies regarding the borrowers’ inventories were detected and both parties jointly hired Arthur Andersen & Co. (Anderson) to conduct a financial investigation. The seven-month investigation uncovered financial misconduct and Bank Group filed several more actions against various parties including Bank Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (BPS). BPS moved to compel depositions of nonparty Andersen. BPS argued that it wanted to depose Andersen as an ordinary fact witness and not as an expert; that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(4)(D) did not apply to shield Andersen from discovery; and even if Andersen was a nontestifying expert witness, exceptional circumstances existed that justified discovery. Andersen, joined by the Bank Group, opposed the motion and cross-motioned for a protective order, arguing that under FRCP 26(b)(4)(D), it was shielded from discovery as a nontestifying expert witness.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ellis, Mag. J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.