The dispute centers on third-party subpoenas served by PAO Tatneft, with Ukraine seeking to limit the scope of those subpoenas and control access to documents it deems sensitive.
Judge Netburn rejected Ukraine's attempt to broadly limit the scope of Tatneft's subpoenas through a generally applicable protective order, noting that the court will resolve what materials should or should not be withheld on a case-by-case basis.
The magistrate judge found that Tatneft's proposed protective order was more consistent with a prior March 20, 2026 order but declined to adopt it as written because it did not sufficiently address Ukraine's legitimate national security concerns in the context of an ongoing war.
Regarding highly sensitive documents, Judge Netburn held that Tatneft's limitation to only "Classified Information" was too narrow, allowing Ukraine to withhold other information that may harm national security, military, or diplomatic interests.
On production timelines, the court rejected Ukraine's "essentially limitless" proposal and adopted Tatneft's presumptive 30-day review window, not to exceed 75 days.
The judge also rejected Tatneft's proposal that Ukraine apply to the court in the first instance for additional protections on non-classified information, instead authorizing Ukraine to designate and withhold documents provided it furnishes a detailed log.
If Tatneft maintains a good-faith challenge to such a designation, Ukraine must bear the burden of persuasion and seek judicial intervention to justify its challenged designation.
The parties are ordered to continue meet-and-confer efforts to develop a joint protective order by May 1, 2026, working off Tatneft's proposed order.
A discovery conference is scheduled for May 4, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 219 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, which will be adjourned if the parties reach an agreement.