The Mercedes-Benz NOx Emissions Group Litigation Aurora Cavallari & Ors v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors

The Mercedes-Benz NOx Emissions Group Litigation Aurora Cavallari & Ors v Mercedes-Benz Group AG & Ors

The Mercedes Defendants have not complied with the January and March 2024 Orders as the agreed two-stage disclosure process was not completed. Description strings, function names, and chapter headings in A2L files are not confidential or irrelevant per se and must be unredacted. The Defendants must review redactions with a more expansive view of relevance, supervised by a solicitor, and provide unredacted headings and descriptions to enable focused debate on withheld parameters. The number of files to be disclosed remains as previously ordered; no reduction is permitted.

Parties
Claimant: Aurora Cavallari & others (The Mercedes-Benz NOx Emissions Group Litigation); Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Group AG & others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Disclosure Order in Group Litigation / Post Case Management Conference, Application to Vary and Clarify Disclosure Obligations
Outcome
Application by Claimants to vary and clarify disclosure order granted in part; Defendants' oral application to reduce scope of disclosure refused.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Confidentiality, Redaction, Group Litigation Orders (glo)
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure Disclosure of Documents Confidentiality Redaction Group Litigation Orders (glo)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aurora Cavallari & others (The Mercedes-Benz NOx Emissions Group Litigation)

Claimant

Mercedes-Benz Group AG & others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Disclosure Order in Group Litigation / Post Case Management Conference, Application to Vary and Clarify Disclosure Obligations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mercedes Defendants complied with the January and March 2024 disclosure orders regarding A2L files
  2. 2 Whether the scope of redactions applied to A2L files was appropriate and justified
  3. 3 Whether the number of A2L files to be disclosed should be reduced after sample selection

Ratio Decidendi

The Mercedes Defendants have not complied with the January and March 2024 Orders as the agreed two-stage disclosure process was not completed. Description strings, function names, and chapter headings in A2L files are not confidential or irrelevant per se and must be unredacted. The Defendants must review redactions with a more expansive view of relevance, supervised by a solicitor, and provide unredacted headings and descriptions to enable focused debate on withheld parameters. The number of files to be disclosed remains as previously ordered; no reduction is permitted.

Court Disposition

Application by Claimants to vary and clarify disclosure order granted in part; Defendants' oral application to reduce scope of disclosure refused.

Orders

  • Defendants must provide unredacted description strings, function names, and chapter headings in A2L files.
  • Defendants may continue to redact data and parameters deemed irrelevant, but must review redactions with a more expansive view of relevance, supervised by a solicitor.