Summary

This is a special proceeding challenging an arbitration award. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and CPLR 7511, Petitioner Shell NA LNG LLC ("Shell") seeks to vacate the final award rendered in Shell NA LNG LLC (U.S.A.) v Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC (U.S.A.), Case No. 27797/PDP, by a three-member tribunal of the ICC International Court of Arbitration (the "Tribunal") on August 7, 2025 (the "Award").

Shell seeks to vacate the Award principally on the contention that Respondent Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC ("VGCP") "misleadingly with[held] critical evidence" (NYSCEF 1 ¶2) during pre-hearing discovery and that VGCP's counsel misled the Tribunal during the hearing as to the existence of such purportedly withheld evidence. Shell also moves, pursuant to CPLR 408, for leave to conduct targeted discovery in aid of its petition, principally to determine whether the purportedly withheld evidence actually exists. VGCP opposes Shell's petition and the motion and separately moves, pursuant to CPLR 3103, for a protective order striking Shell's First Set of Requests to Admit.

For the reasons set forth more fully below, Shell's petition to vacate the Award and its motion for leave to conduct discovery are both denied and VGCP's motion for a protective order is granted. Pursuant to CPLR 7511(e) ("upon the denial of a motion to vacate or modify, [the court] shall confirm the award"), the Award is confirmed.

In a nutshell, after a lengthy discovery process followed by a two-week evidentiary hearing, the Tribunal issued a comprehensive 50-page decision in VGCP's favor based on an extensive record. The Tribunal also specifically considered (and rejected) Shell's in-hearing complaints about VGCP's purportedly incomplete document production that mirror Shell's present petition and request for CPLR 408 discovery. Notably, the petition--including its central claim that the Tribunal was misled about the potential existence of withheld documents--is premised entirely on the evidentiary record that was squarely in front of the Tribunal for consideration. Based on that same record, the Tribunal determined that no additional discovery was warranted. Given the substantial deference this Court must give to arbitral decisions, including decisions as to the scope of discovery during the arbitration, the relief Shell seeks cannot be granted. Therefore, the Award is confirmed.