Exhibit 1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON LIMITED and 

ADRIAN SPIRES, 

Movants, 

v. 

GLENCORE LTD., 

Respondent. 

Misc. Case No. 1:24-139 

(Arising from Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-04577 

in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois) 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON LIMITED AND 

ADRIAN SPIRES’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 1 of 20
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2

I. The May WTI Contract Is Traded at Negative Prices on April 20, 2020 ........................... 2

II. A Putative Class Action Was Brought Against Vega, Spires, and Ten Traders in 

the Northern District of Illinois........................................................................................... 3

III. Vega and Spires Served a Narrow Subpoena on Glencore Ltd. ......................................... 5

IV. Vega and Spires’ Efforts to Meet and Confer with Glencore’s Counsel Were 

Unsuccessful ....................................................................................................................... 6

STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................7

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................8

I. The Subpoena Seeks Information That Is Relevant and Proportional to the Needs 

of the Case........................................................................................................................... 8

II. The Subpoena Does Not Subject Glencore to an Undue Burden ..................................... 11

III. Any Trade Secrets or Confidential Information Will Be Protected by The Illinois 

Court’s Existing Protective Order ..................................................................................... 13

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................14

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 2 of 20
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

CFTC v. Parnon Energy, Inc., 

2013 WL 5882921 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2013), aff’d, 593 F. App’x 32 (2d Cir. 2014) ..............9 

Citizens Union of City of New York v. Attorney General of New York, 

269 F. Supp. 3d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)..................................................................................8, 11 

Conopco, Inc. v. Wein, 

2007 WL 2438390 ...................................................................................................................13 

F.T.C. v. Thomas Jefferson Univ., 

2020 WL 3034809 (E.D. Pa. June 5, 2020) .............................................................................11 

Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. Of Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Merrill, 

443 U.S. 340 (1979) .................................................................................................................13 

GEICO v. Mayzenberg, 

2018 WL 10517074 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2018) .......................................................................12 

In re Biovail Corp. Sec. Litig., 

247 F.R.D. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .................................................................................................8 

In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 

2010 WL 1640188 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010)..........................................................................13 

In re Fitch, Inc., 

330 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2003).......................................................................................................8 

In re Honeywell Int’l Sec. Litig., 

230 F.R.D. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) .............................................................................................11 

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Bell Commc’n. Rsch., 

1997 WL 10919 .......................................................................................................................14 

In re Subpoenas to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., 

No. 13-mc-2975, 2014 WL 204447 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2014)......................................9, 12, 14 

Kohen v. Pacific Investment Mgmt. Co., 

571 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................9 

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 

2016 WL 5478433 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016) ...........................................................................7 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 3 of 20
iii 

Mish Int’l Monetary Inc. v. Vega Cap. London, Ltd., 

596 F. Supp. 3d 1076 (N.D. Ill. 2022) .......................................................................................4 

Mish Int’l Monetary Inc. v. Vega Cap. London, Ltd., 

648 F. Supp. 3d 980 (N.D. Ill. 2022) .........................................................................................4 

Mish International Monetary Inc. v. Vega Capital London Limited, et al., 

Case No. 1:20-cv-4577 (N.D. Ill.) .............................................................................................1 

Premium Plus Partners, L.P. v. Davis, 

2008 WL 3978340 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2008) ..........................................................................10 

Rahman v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group, Inc., 

2007 WL 1521117 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2007) .........................................................................10 

Rinaldi v. NICE, 

2020 WL 4340640 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2020) ..........................................................................12 

Rios v. Ramage, 

2020 WL 6701206 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2020) ...........................................................................13 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, 

LLC, 255 F. Supp. 3d 700 (E.D. Mich. 2017), aff’d, 2017 WL 3116261 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 

2017) ........................................................................................................................................13 

Vitol, Inc. v. Vega Capital London Limited, 

Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-1942 (N.D. Ill.) .................................................................................5 

Statutes 

7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(2) ...........................................................................................................................4 

Commodity Exchange Act ...............................................................................................................4 

Sherman Act.................................................................................................................................3, 4 

Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(D) ..............................................................................................................7 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B)(i) ........................................................................................................13 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 4 of 20
1

Vega Capital London Limited (“Vega”) and Adrian Spires (“Spires”) submit this 

memorandum in support of their motion to compel Glencore Ltd. (“Glencore”) to produce 

documents in response to a subpoena duces tecum. Vega and Spires seek the production from 

Glencore of a limited set of documents needed to defend themselves in a putative class action 

pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See Mish 

International Monetary Inc. v. Vega Capital London Limited, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-4577 

(N.D. Ill.).1

INTRODUCTION 

On April 20, 2020, within a few months of the onslaught of a global pandemic, the West 

Texas Intermediate crude oil futures contract with a May 2020 expiration (“May WTI Contract”) 

traded at negative prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”). It was the first 

time in the history of NYMEX that a WTI futures contract had traded at negative prices. Vega 

and Spires are now seeking to defend themselves from a putative class action in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois accusing them and ten traders in the United 

Kingdom of causing those negative prices. The defense of Vega and Spires in that lawsuit, 

among other things, is that the operation of natural laws of supply and demand (and not market 

manipulation) caused that price drop. In the beginning of the pandemic, there was a sharp drop 

in demand for oil and a vast over-supply of it. That lack of demand was particularly true for the 

May WTI contract, which was in the penultimate day of trading and which required any holder at 

the expiry of the contract on April 21 to accept physical delivery of the oil at Cushing, 

1 Concurrent with this motion, with the motion practice currently pending before the 

district court in the Northern District of Illinois with respect to a nearly identical subpoena, Vega 

and Spires are separately filing a motion to transfer this miscellaneous action to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 5 of 20
2

Oklahoma. To make matters worse, storage space in Cushing was nearly exhausted at the time, 

leaving few with a compelling reason to buy a May WTI contract. 

The putative class action against Vega and Spires is now in the midst of discovery. To 

prove (among other things) that there was no demand in the marketplace on April 20 for the May 

WTI contract and therefore no “artificial price,” Vega and Spires issued narrowly-tailored 

subpoenas to 28 of the largest traders on NYMEX, including Glencore. The subpoenas sought 

only documents “sufficient to show” how and when those companies traded the May WTI 

Contract on April 20 and 21, 2020. From the discovery responses of these 28 companies, Vega 

and Spires expect they will be able to prove that even the largest and most sophisticated 

participants in the market had little-to-no desire to purchase the May WTI Contract and that their 

relative lack of demand illustrates why the prices for this contract were negative on April 20. 

After nine conferences with Vega and Spires about the subpoena, Glencore, one of the 

world’s leading marketers of crude oil and oil products, has indicated that it does not intend to 

comply with the subpoena. For the reasons set forth below, the Court should compel Glencore to 

comply with the subpoena and produce responsive documents. 

BACKGROUND 

I. The May WTI Contract Is Traded at Negative Prices on April 20, 2020 

On April 20, 2020, the May WTI Contract on NYMEX began the day trading at $17.73 

per barrel, entered into negative prices at 1:08 pm (CT), and ultimately finished the trading day 

on 1:30 pm (CT) at -$37.63 per barrel. Kelly Decl., Ex. 1 at 1, 3, 8. Under the terms of the May 

WTI Contract, parties holding the futures contract were generally expected to sell it by the 

contract’s expiry on April 21, 2020 or take physical possession of the oil in May. Id. at 2. Each 

contract is for a thousand barrels of oil. Id. at 6. The physical delivery requirement of the 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 6 of 20
3

contract provided speculators holding the May WTI Contract with a strong incentive to sell the 

contract before its expiry on April 21. 

The staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission prepared a lengthy interim 

report describing “the fundamental factors of supply, demand, and storage as well as technical 

trading factors surrounding the May Contract . . .” in April 2020. Id. at 2. The CFTC staff 

described how an “already oversupplied global crude oil market was hit with an unprecedented 

reduction in demand caused by the novel coronavirus pandemic” and how “[u]ncertainty over 

both the magnitude and duration of that loss of demand caused increased volatility to historic 

levels.” Id. Among other things, there were concerns about whether “OPEC Plus or other global 

producers could respond quickly to the reduction in demand,” id., and whether there would be 

any storage available in Cushing, Oklahoma, where the May WTI Contract required oil to be 

delivered, id. Indeed, “[i]n or about late March and early April, NYMEX and some industry 

participants began preparing for the prospect of negative WTI crude oil prices, changing 

technology and pricing models to account for this contingency.” Id. at 2-3. However, after its 

lengthy review, the CFTC staff declined to “identify the root cause(s) of any price movement of 

the WTI Contract leading up to, on, or around April 20.” Id. at 1 n.1. That task has been left to 

Vega, Spires, and the other parties in the Illinois case. 

II. A Putative Class Action Was Brought Against Vega, 

Spires, and Ten Traders in the Northern District of Illinois 

Since August 2020, Mish International Monetary Inc. (“Mish”), a California company 

specializing in precious metals and rare coins, has been pursuing a putative class action against 

Vega. Mish later expanded its complaint to name Vega’s owner, Adrian Spires, and ten traders 

associated with Vega as defendants in the case. In the current operative complaint, Mish 

asserted eight claims against them, including a Sherman Act antitrust conspiracy claim and a 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 7 of 20
4

number of Commodity Exchange Act market manipulation claims. Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 346-393. This 

case is pending before the Honorable Manish S. Shah in the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois. 

The Illinois case has a lengthy procedural history, including two decisions on motions to 

dismiss the complaint. See Mish Int’l Monetary Inc. v. Vega Cap. London, Ltd., 596 F. Supp. 3d 

1076 (N.D. Ill. 2022); Mish Int’l Monetary Inc. v. Vega Cap. London, Ltd., 648 F. Supp. 3d 980 

(N.D. Ill. 2022). For purposes relevant here, for a market manipulation claim under 7 U.S.C. § 

13(a)(2), a plaintiff must show “(1) the defendants possessed the ability to influence prices; (2) 

an artificial price existed; (3) the defendant caused the artificial price; and (4) the defendant 

specifically intended to cause the artificial price.” Mish Int’l Monetary Inc., 596 F. Supp. 3d at 

1095 (emphasis added). For a Sherman Act claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) defendants had a 

contract, combination, or conspiracy (‘an agreement’); (2) as a result, trade in the relevant 

market was unreasonably restrained; and (3) [the plaintiff was] injured.” Id. at 1092 (emphasis 

added). 

The case is now in merits and class certification discovery, and Vega and Spires intend to 

show, among other things, that no artificial price existed and there was no restraint of trade on 

the market for the May WTI Contract. To prove that no artificial price existed and that the lack 

of demand/over-supply of oil caused the drop in prices, Vega and Spires issued narrowly-tailored 

subpoenas to 28 of the largest traders in the NYMEX market.2 The purpose of serving 

2 The traders are: (1) Bank of China Limited; (2) Barclays Bank PLC; (3) BASF Intertrade 

Corporation; (4) BlackRock, Inc.; (5) BNP Paribas S.A.; (6) BP Products North America, Inc.; 

(7) Capital One National Association; (8) Chevron USA Inc.; (9) Citadel Securities LLC; (10) 

Citigroup Inc.; (11) ConocoPhillips Company; (12) ExxonMobil Oil Corporation; (13) Glencore 

Ltd.; (14) Goldman Sachs Group; (15) ING Capital Markets LLC; (16) JP Morgan Chase Bank 

NA; (17) Macquarie Inc.; (18) Mercuria Energy America LLC; (19) Mitsubishi International 

Corporation; (20) Morgan Stanley; (21) Nomura Securities International Inc.; (22) Pacific 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 8 of 20
5

subpoenas on these 28 large traders was to show that the lack of demand was evidence of a 

market-wide phenomenon and not merely anecdotal evidence that could be cast aside. The 

subpoenas were served on different types of large traders, including global financial institutions, 

multinational oil companies, commodities trading firms, and other large institutions. Vega and 

Spires kept the Illinois federal district court informed of the 28 subpoena recipients, the nature of 

the subpoenas, and the reasons why those subpoenas were being pursued. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 3-5 

(joint status report filed in the Illinois case on December 14, 2023); Ex. 4 (March 1, 2024 joint 

status report). One subpoena recipient, Vitol Inc., filed a motion to quash in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Vitol subsequently consented to the motion 

being transferred to the Illinois court, and that motion is currently pending before Judge Shah. 

See Vitol, Inc. v. Vega Capital London Limited, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-1942 (N.D. Ill.). 

Mish filed its motion for class certification on February 19, 2024. Defendants’ response 

to Mish’s motion is due on June 6, 2024 and Mish’s reply is due on August 5, 2024. 

III. Vega and Spires Served a Narrow Subpoena on Glencore Ltd.

Vega and Spires’ subpoena to Glencore Ltd. was served on its registered agent on 

November 17, 2023, with a compliance date of December 18, 2023. Ex. 5. Glencore Ltd. is a 

subsidiary of Glencore plc, “one of the world’s leading marketers of crude oil and oil products” 

which supplies “millions of barrels of oil every day to customers around the world.”3 Glencore 

plc sold 535 million barrels of crude oil and 544 million barrels of oil products via its marketing 

Investment Management Company; (23) PetroChina International (America) Inc.; (24) Phillips 

66 Co.; (25) Repsol Trading USA LLC; (26) Shell Trading (US) Company; (27) Socar Trading 

North America LLC; and (28) Vitol Incorporated. 

3

See glencore.com/what-we-do/energy/oil (last visited March 22, 2024). 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 9 of 20
6

business,4 and announced earnings of $34 billion.5 Glencore Ltd. is headquartered at 330 

Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017. 

The subpoena contains nine requests for documents sufficient to show Glencore’s 

involvement in the May WTI Contract on the last two days of trading on April 20 and 21, 2020. 

The following categories reflect the scope and content of the nine requests: 

 Documents sufficient to show Glencore’s trades and investments in the 

May WTI Contract from April 20 to April 21, 2020, including the amount 

and timing of any trades and the amount of any short or long positions. 

See Ex. 5 at Requests 1-3. 

 Documents sufficient to show whether Glencore knew or believed that the 

May WTI Contract could trade at negative prices and Glencore’s trading 

strategy in connection with that contract. See id. at Requests 4-6. 

 Documents sufficient to show whether Glencore accepted (or considered 

accepting) the physical delivery of any oil covered by the May WTI 

Contract. See id. at Request 7. 

 Documents sufficient to show communications between Glencore and 

third parties and other information relating to the May WTI Contract. See 

id. at Requests 8-9. 

IV. Vega and Spires’ Efforts to Meet and Confer 

with Glencore’s Counsel Were Unsuccessful 

Before filing with this motion, Vega and Spires met and conferred with counsel for 

Glencore on nine separate occasions to determine whether the parties could reach an agreement 

on the production required by the subpoena. On December 6 and January 3, 2024, Vega and 

Spires agreed to multiple extensions for Glencore to respond to the subpoena and explained the 

reasoning behind the subpoena. On January 12, 2024, Glencore sent Vega and Spires its 

4

Id. 

5

See Glencore Annual Report 2022, 

https://www.glencore.com/.rest/api/v1/documents/ded10fa92974aa388a43aa9f86f483e9/GLEN2022-Annual-Report.pdf (last visited March 22, 2024). 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 10 of 20
7

objections to the subpoena. Ex. 6. Among other objections raised, Glencore objected to the 

subpoena as “harassing, unduly burdensome, and not proportionate to the needs of the Action,” 

and further objected “to the extent it may require Glencore to produce documents reflecting trade 

secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercially sensitive information.” Id.

at p. 2-3. 

Following the receipt of Glencore’s objections, Vega and Spires met and conferred with 

Glencore four times about Glencore’s objections and searched to see if a compromise could be 

reached, including on January 22, February 7, February 16, and February 23. The parties 

discussed potential options, but none of those discussions resulted in any agreement by the 

parties. On February 23, 2024, counsel for Glencore informed Vega and Spires’ counsel that 

Glencore did not intend to produce any documents in response to the subpoena. On March 4, 

2024, Vega and Spires informed Glencore that they intended to file a motion to compel, after 

which the parties met and conferred three more times on March 8, March 15, and March 18 and 

discussed various proposals to come to an agreement, but to no avail. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows parties to subpoena nonparties for documents 

relevant to a civil suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(D). Subpoenas issued under Rule 45 are “subject 

to the relevance requirement of Rule 26(b)(1),” which provides that “[p]arties may obtain 

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” 

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2016 WL 5478433, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016). “The party 

seeking discovery bears the initial burden of proving the discovery is relevant, and then the party 

withholding discovery on the grounds of burden, expense, privilege, or work product bears the 

burden of proving the discovery is in fact privileged or work product, unduly burdensome and/or 

expensive.” Citizens Union of City of New York v. Attorney General of New York, 269 F. Supp. 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 11 of 20
8

3d 124, 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (internal citations omitted)); see also In re Biovail Corp. Sec. Litig., 

247 F.R.D. 72, 74 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“where, as here, [information] is sought from third parties, 

the Court must weigh the probative value of the information against the burden of production on 

said non-parties.”). Motions to compel are “entrusted to the sound discretion of the district 

court.” In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 2003). 

DISCUSSION 

The Court should compel Glencore to comply with Vega and Spires’ subpoena for the 

following three reasons: (i) the subpoena seeks information that is relevant and proportional to 

the needs of the Illinois case; (ii) the subpoena does not subject Glencore to an undue burden; 

and (iii) any trade secrets or confidential information can be protected by the Illinois court’s 

existing protective order. 

I. The Subpoena Seeks Information That Is 

Relevant and Proportional to the Needs of the Case 

Vega and Spires seek information that is directly relevant and narrowly tailored to the 

merits and class certification issues in the Illinois case. On the merits, the subpoena seeks 

information that will help to establish that there was no artificial price for the May WTI Contract 

on April 20, 2020 and no restraint on trade. As one of the world’s leading marketers of crude oil 

and oil products, Glencore possesses important information on why there was not more demand 

for the May WTI Contract on April 20, 2020. Why did a large oil trader like Glencore not 

purchase the May WTI Contract in greater amounts when the purchase price was zero? When 

the price dropped to -$37.63 per barrel, a trader like Glencore theoretically could have purchased 

contracts covering a million barrels of oil and immediately made over $37 million from the 

transaction – even before selling the oil at some later point. Why did Glencore not “buy” more 

at negative prices? If it did purchase the May WTI Contract at zero or negative prices, why did 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 12 of 20
9

Glencore and other similar companies not make these purchases in sufficient quantities to drive 

the price of oil futures contracts up?

The contemporaneous evidence of Glencore’s activity sought by the subpoena (including 

its trading records and relevant email and text messages) will answer these questions. Vega and 

Spires believe that the evidence from Glencore will (i) prove there was no significant demand for 

the May WTI Contract on April 20 amongst the largest traders; and (ii) demonstrate why there 

was no significant demand for that contract. That evidence, in turn, will help prove in the Illinois 

case that there was no artificial price or restraint of trade on April 20. In market manipulation 

cases, courts have found the production of information from nonparty traders to be relevant, 

stating, in part: 

[T]he WTI market’s alleged switch between contango and backwardation is central 

to Plaintiffs’ manipulation and monopolization claims. Far from being irrelevant, 

documents indicating the perceptions and reactions of ‘innocent’ nonparty traders 

are highly probative of whether this phenomenon occurred and how it impacted the 

market. Information about the nonparties’ activities before and after the alleged 

manipulation is also relevant to provide a benchmark for activity in a 

nonmanipulated market. 

CFTC v. Parnon Energy, Inc., 2013 WL 5882921, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2013), aff’d, 593 F. 

App’x 32, 36 (2d Cir. 2014); see also In re Subpoenas to Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P., No. 13-

mc-2975, 2014 WL 204447, at **4-5 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2014) (“[Nonparty’s] role in the 

physical and futures market during the time period at issue, which would yield or could lead to 

the discovery of evidence regarding deliverable supplies and market conduct, is discoverable in 

the [underlying] enforcement and class actions.”) (discussing Parnon). 

At the same time, this kind of discovery will further demonstrate why the plaintiff’s 

claims in the Illinois case are not typical and why individual issues will predominate over 

common issues. See, e.g., Kohen v. Pacific Inv. Mgmt. Co., 571 F.3d 672, 679 (7th Cir. 2009) 

(suggesting that a class action defendant in a market manipulation case could “depose a random 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 13 of 20
10

sample of class members to determine how many were net gainers from the alleged manipulation 

and therefore were not injured, and if it turns out to be a high percentage he could urge the 

district court to revisit its decision to certify the class”). Mish, the plaintiff in the Illinois case, is 

a rare coin dealer whose website does not mention the trading of contracts for any oil futures 

commodities. By contrast, Glencore is “one of the world’s leading marketers of crude oil and oil 

products” which earned $11.6 billion in 2020.6 Glencore has little in common with Mish. 

The discovery sought is relevant to assessing whether Mish’s claims are typical of the 

putative class. See Premium Plus Partners, L.P. v. Davis, 2008 WL 3978340, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 

Aug. 22, 2008) (finding that use of a “variety of trading strategies” among investors in the 

treasury market precluded finding of typicality); see also Rahman v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. 

Grp., Inc., 2007 WL 1521117, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2007) (“Pre-certification discovery is 

often necessary to determine whether certification is appropriate.”). If Vega and Spires were not 

allowed to subpoena or question large trading firms about how they traded and their relative lack 

of demand for the May WTI Contract, Vega and Spires would be missing evidence important to 

their defenses that Mish’s claims are not typical, that individual issues will predominate over 

common issues, that there was no artificial price, and that there was no restraint of trade. 

The discovery sought by Vega and Spires, including the trading data sought by Requests 

1 through 3, cannot be obtained from other sources. As Vega and Spires reported to the district 

court in the Illinois case, other parties served subpoenas on CME Group Inc. (the owner of 

NYMEX), seeking trading information for the May WTI Contract bought or sold on April 20, 

2020. Ex. 7 at 3. CME initially produced the trading information in anonymized format and 

6

See Glencore 2020 Annual Report, 

https://www.glencore.com/.rest/api/v1/documents/3505497f3cb94b24f0c79f5ba32b293b/Glenco

re_AR20_Interactive+%281%29.pdf (last visited March 22, 2024). 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 14 of 20
11

later produced unmasked information for some traders. Id. However, the CME represented to 

counsel for the ten traders in the Illinois case that it cannot necessarily track trader information to 

individual companies because traders trade through a process in which the individual traders are 

identified through their individual Tag50 ID and not necessarily through their corporate 

affiliation. Id. The subpoena to Glencore is the only way to obtain comprehensive information 

about Glencore’s trading on April 20, 2020. It is undisputed that the remaining requests seek 

discovery that cannot be obtained from another source, in whole or in part. 

II. The Subpoena Does Not Subject Glencore to an Undue Burden

Compliance with the subpoena would not impose an undue burden on Glencore. In 

determining whether the burden imposed by a subpoena is undue, courts consider factors such as 

“relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the 

time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are described and the 

burden imposed.” Citizens, 269 F. Supp. 3d at 138. 

Relevance and Need. The evidence sought is relevant to central issues in the Illinois 

case, including whether the May WTI Contract was trading at an artificial price on April 20, 

2020. The need for discovery from Glencore is compelling because the information from the 

largest traders can best prove why there was no significant demand for the May WTI Contract at 

zero or negative prices. See In re Honeywell Int’l Sec. Litig., 230 F.R.D. 293, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 

2003) (finding that a subpoena request seeking documents regarding a nonparty auditor’s 

independence was “clearly relevant to a possible [] defense”); F.T.C. v. Thomas Jefferson Univ., 

2020 WL 3034809, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 5, 2020) (finding “compelling need for [subpoenaed] 

information, as it cannot be acquired from any of the parties”). 

Breadth, Time Period, and Particularity. The subpoena is narrowly tailored to obtain 

only information “sufficient to show” Glencore’s trading of one product (the May WTI Contract) 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 15 of 20
12

on two days (April 20 and 21). Requests 1 through 3 seek information about the basic 

characteristics of Glencore’s trading of the May WTI Contract. Requests 4 through 9 seek 

information about Glencore’s knowledge, communications, trading strategies, and purchases of 

crude oil with respect to the May WTI Contract on April 20, 2020, including when Glencore 

knew that prices could go negative and how such knowledge impacted Glencore’s trading that 

day. Each subpoena request is specific, discrete, and narrowly tailored in terms of subject matter 

and temporal scope. Compare Rinaldi v. NICE, 2020 WL 4340640, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 

2020) (finding plaintiff’s third party subpoena requests “relevant, proportional to this case and 

narrowly tailored in content and time” where requests sought information on one topic during an 

eight-month time period) with GEICO v. Mayzenberg, 2018 WL 10517074, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 

29, 2018) (finding subpoenas issued to nonparties as “overbroad in that they seek documents and 

information without a temporal limitation that is proportional to the needs of this case”). 

Proportionality. Finally, it would be proportionate for Glencore to produce this 

discovery. The WTI futures contract is “a commodity that is central to the functioning of the 

world economy,” and litigation over whether a WTI contract had an artificial price on a historic 

day is “of national, and indeed international, import.” In re Subpoenas to Plains All Am. 

Pipeline, L.P., 2014 WL 204447, at **5, 7. The amount in controversy is high: the Illinois 

plaintiff alleges the traders associated with Vega made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit 

on April 20, 2020, and demands, among other things, actual and treble damages on behalf of 

itself and the putative class. Ex. 2 at ¶ 255, Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ J, K. The amount in 

controversy in the Illinois case therefore exceeds $1 billion, which weighs in favor of discovery. 

See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F. Supp. 3d 700, 

710 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (finding proportionality factors “tip[ped] far towards” permitting the 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 16 of 20
13

requested nonparty discovery where, inter alia, the amount in controversy included treble 

damages and “the potential for a multi-million dollar verdict”), aff’d, 2017 WL 3116261 (E.D. 

Mich. July 21, 2017); see also In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 2010 WL 1640188, at *2 

(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) (finding that a nonparty subpoena seeking a “limited group of 

documents” was not “unduly burdensome or disproportionate” and “would be very relevant to 

the issues in the case because the documents would reflect a contemporaneous analysis of the 

value of [a company’s assets]”). 

III. Any Trade Secrets or Confidential Information Will 

Be Protected by The Illinois Court’s Existing Protective Order 

The Illinois court’s protective order can protect any trade secrets or confidential 

information in Glencore’s production. “[T]here is no absolute privilege for trade secrets and 

similar confidential information.” Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Merrill, 

443 U.S. 340, 362 (1979). As such, “[t]he Federal Rules provide that the court ‘may’—but is not 

required to—quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosure of ‘a trade secret or other 

confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Rios v. Ramage, 2020 WL 

6701206, at *6 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B)(i)). 

To the extent that Glencore is concerned about producing information it claims is 

confidential or amounts to trade secrets, the Court should find that any concerns about disclosing 

such information are addressed by the protective order that governs discovery in the Illinois case. 

Ex. 8. Courts regularly compel production of such discovery where it is relevant and necessary 

to the underlying action and the nonparty’s interests are sufficiently protected by a 

confidentiality or protective order. See, e.g., Conopco, Inc. v. Wein, 2007 WL 2438390, at *3 

(finding that the risk of disclosing a nonparty’s “confidential financial information” was “no 

reason to quash the subpoena” because of the existing confidentiality order in the case); In re 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 17 of 20
14

Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Bell Commc’n. Rsch., 1997 WL 10919, at *3 (directing 

nonparty to produce all requested documents because all “proprietary documents would be 

subject to the Protective Order approved by the district judge in the underlying case”); In re 

Subpoenas to Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P., 2014 WL 204447, at *6 (agreeing that subpoenaed 

nonparty “has not shown an identifiable risk that its information, albeit sensitive, will be used for 

improper business purposes in violation of the protective order” in the case). 

The protective order in the Illinois case allows parties and nonparties to designate 

discovery material as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential,” and contains restrictions on 

disclosure for each designation. Ex. 8 at §§ 2.1, 2.2, 4.2, 4.3. The restrictions for “Highly 

Confidential” designations are akin to attorneys’ eyes only and will not permit any of the parties 

(including Mish, Spires, or the ten traders) to view Glencore’s highly confidential information. 

(Id. at § 4.3.) The protective order limits use of discovery material to the Illinois case and 

expressly forbids it from being used for any “business, commercial, or other purpose.” Id. at §§ 

1.1, 4.1. Its terms are binding on all lawyers, parties, and persons subject to its terms. Id. at § 

13.3. And any consultants, experts, or witnesses who may receive or view designated material 

must sign the attached acknowledgement and agreement to be bound by its terms, subject to 

“sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt” for any violation. Id. at §§ 4.2(e), 4.2(g), 

4.3(e), 4.4, and Attachment A. These provisions sufficiently protect against the misuse of any 

discovery that may qualify as Glencore’s trade secrets or confidential commercial information. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Vega and Spires respectfully request that the Court grant their 

Motion to Compel and (1) compel Glencore to comply with the subpoena issued by Vega and 

Spires within ten business days, and (2) grant any other relief the Court deems appropriate. A 

proposed order is attached to this memorandum. 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 18 of 20
15

Dated: March 22, 2024 

Respectfully submitted, 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON LIMITED AND ADRIAN SPIRES 

By: /s/ Michael P. Kelly 

Michael P. Kelly 

AKERMAN LLP 

750 Ninth Street, N.W., Suite 750 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 393-6222 

michael.kelly@akerman.com

Attorneys for Vega Capital London Limited 

and Adrian Spires

Elpitha B. Lambros* 

AKERMAN LLP 

71 S. Wacker Drive, 47th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 634-5700 

elpitha.lambros@akerman.com 

*Motion for admission pro hac vice

forthcoming

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 19 of 20
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, on March 22, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Movants Vega Capital London Limited and Adrian Spires’ Memorandum in Support of Their 

Motion to Compel was served upon the following counsel for Glencore Ltd. by email and 

Federal Express: 

Peter Behmke, Esq. 

Barron M. Flood, Esq. 

Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP 

450 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10017 

(917) 542-7600 (phone) 

(917) 542-7601 (facsimile) 

peter.behmke@hsf.com

barron.flood@hsf.com

/s/ Michael P. Kelly 

Michael P. Kelly 

Case 1:24-mc-00139 Document 2 Filed 03/22/24 Page 20 of 20