Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, INC., 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	C.A. No. 17-396-JJM
:
EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC (d/b/a SHELL 	:
OIL PRODUCTS US), et al., 	:
Defendants. 	:
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court is the motion (ECF No. 326) of Plaintiff, Conservation
Law Foundation, Inc. (“CLF”), to compel a further search for and, if found, production of seven
specifically described documents called for by a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena served on non-party
Shell Global Solutions, U.S. Inc. (“SGS”).
This motion is based on the Court’s ruling on SGS’s motion to quash or limit the
subpoena:
[T]he motions to quash are denied to the limited extent that, on or before
December 19, 2025, Plaintiff CLF shall identity with specificity one or more
responsive document(s) not already produced that is within the scope of relevant
discovery as previously set by the Court. CLF’s identification of the document
shall be by providing the third-party with sufficient information (for example,
approximate date, likely author or approximate title) so that the document may be
located without the need for burdensome electronic searches using search terms.
Text Order of Dec. 4, 2025. Following the issuance of this Text Order, CLF identified eight
documents with as much specific information as it was able to glean from references in other
documents produced in discovery suggesting that each of the eight documents exist. Using this
specific information, SGS conducted what it contends are reasonable good-faith searches for
each of the eight documents but was able to locate only one; SGS also contends that two of the
Case 1:17-cv-00396-JJM-PAS Document 344 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
documents were previously produced. CLF’s motion to compel now challenges the adequacy of
SGS’s searches for six of the documents and argues that one of the documents that SGS claims
was already produced references the document CLF seeks but is not the actual document.
As support for its argument, CLF’s motion relied heavily on SGS’s failure to provide a
supporting explanation for what it did to look for these documents, compelling CLF to conclude
that “SGS appears to be deliberately evading production.” ECF No. 326 at 14. The problem is
that SGS’s opposition to the motion has now plugged that hole. Supported by the Declaration of
Senior Legal Counsel, Abigail Dodd,1 ECF No. 333-1, SGS has provided a detailed description
of its efforts to search for these documents calibrated to focus on the document repositories
where such documents should be found, including an explanation of why at least some of the
documents may not exist despite a suggestion in another document that they do. 2 SGS relies on
this Declaration to assert that no discrete document corresponding to the specific parameters
exists in the accessible records.
CLF contends that SGS’s search methodology remains inadequate because Ms. Dodd did
not include a detailed description of the architecture of SGS’s document repositories in her
declaration; nor did she reveal whether she performed an investigation to include interviews of
individuals who might be able to provide more information about how to find the requested
documents; nor did she perform a document review looking for the missing (and perhaps
nonexistent) documents or clues about them based on a custodian-based document collection
culled by search terms.
1 Ms. Dodd’s background and experience as laid out in her Declaration includes access to and knowledge of
document storage across Shell business units. Dodd Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. Further, she avers to having familiarity with other
discovery in this case, as well as with the CLF subpoena to SGS. Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 6-12.
2 For example, Ms. Dodd avers that SGS does not always generate a discrete or formally designated final report for
internal work performed by business groups even if one is mentioned in work product. Dodd Decl. ¶ 13.
Case 1:17-cv-00396-JJM-PAS Document 344 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Mindful that SGS is a third party (albeit one that is within the Shell group and therefore is
affiliated with the party Defendants), I find that the Dodd Declaration establishes that SGS has
complied with the Court’s Text Order of December 4, 2026, by performing targeted searches
specifically tailored to locate the remaining documents specified by CLF (if they exist) using the
information provided by CLF. I further find that CLF’s contention that more should be done,
beyond what is laid out in the Dodd Declaration, would impose on SGS the requirement to
perform a search that exceeds the scope of the Court’s Text Order of December 4, 2025. That is,
the granting of the motion would impose a disproportionate and inappropriate burden on a third
party. Based on these findings, CLF’s motion to compel SGS to perform additional searches
(ECF No. 326) is denied.
/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
May 8, 2026
Case 1:17-cv-00396-JJM-PAS Document 344 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>