Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

February 6, 2018, Decided; February 6, 2018, Filed

14 Civ. 8175 (LGS)

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

Plaintiff Royal Park Investments SA/NV ("Royal Park") brings a putative class action on behalf of certificateholders of RMBS trusts against HSBC Bank USA, N.A. ("HSBC") for violations of the agreements outlining HSBC's obligations as trustee. Royal Park objects to Magistrate Judge Netburn's Orders dated July 24, 2017, and August 11, 2017, compelling Royal Park to produce in unredacted form documents located in Belgium from [*3]  its assignor, BNP Paribas Fortis ("BNP"). For the following reasons, Royal Park's objections are overruled.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2015, the recently retired Judge Scheindlin ordered Royal Park to produce documents held by BNP, the assignor of its legal claims against HSBC. Royal Park subsequently produced BNP documents, but without custodial information and with substantial redactions of names and email addresses in the To, From and CC fields, in the bodies of the emails and in the attachments. BNP's U.S. counsel claims that the redactions are required under the Belgian Data Privacy Act of December 8, 1992, as amended ("Belgian Act"), which restricts the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union. On July 11, 2017, HSBC moved to compel Royal Park to produce these documents without the redactions and with custodian information restored. Judge Netburn granted the motion on July 24, 2017, adopting HSBC's reasoning in full as set forth in its letters dated July 11 and 19, 2017. On August 7, 2017, Royal Park moved for reconsideration, which Judge Netburn denied on August 11, adopting the reasoning in HSBC's August 10, 2017, letter. On August 25, 2017, Royal Park [*4]  filed an objection seeking an order vacating Judge Netburn's Orders and holding that the redactions were proper pursuant to international comity.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19411 *; 2018 WL 745994

ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Plaintiff, -against- HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Defendant.

Prior History: Royal Park Invs. SA/NA v. HSBC Bank USA Nat'l Ass'n, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70989 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2017)

CORE TERMS

documents, redactions, comity, clearly erroneous, Belgian Act