The Mercedes-Benz NOx Emissions Group Litigation Aurora Cavallari & others vs Mercedes-Benz Group AG & others

This case concerned a dispute over the disclosure and redaction of firmware files in the context of the Mercedes-Benz NOx emissions group litigation.

TLDR:

• The Claimants sought to vary an order regarding the disclosure of firmware files.
• The court examined the relevance and confidentiality of the redacted information.
• The court ruled that certain redactions were inappropriate and ordered a more expansive disclosure.

The Mercedes-Benz NOx Emissions Group Litigation involved Aurora Cavallari and others as claimants against Mercedes-Benz Group AG and others. The dispute arose over the disclosure and inspection of firmware files related to the vehicle's software, specifically concerning emissions control systems and potential prohibited defeat devices.

On January 19, 2024, Mrs. Justice Cockerill ordered the disclosure of identified firmware versions in A2L file format, with irrelevant material redacted. This was followed by a March order requiring the disclosure of accompanying A2L files for those firmware versions, unaltered and unencrypted, by March 27, 2024.

The Claimants relied on statements from Mr. Lawson, while the Defendants presented evidence from Mr. Bennett. The Claimants argued that the redacted A2L files were effectively unusable without description strings, function names, and chapter headings, which they claimed were not confidential. The Defendants contended that the redactions were necessary to protect confidential information and that the files could still be used with automated calibration tools.

Mr. Justice Constable ruled that the description strings, function names, and chapter headings should not be redacted as they were not confidential and were necessary for the Claimants' expert investigations. He ordered the Defendants to review their redactions and adopt a more expansive view of relevance, ensuring transparency in the disclosure process.

The court emphasized that any disputes over relevance should be swiftly resolved and that the disclosure process should remain proportionate. The Defendants were instructed to supervise the redaction process and provide proper verification of compliance with the court's observations.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the scope of the January and March orders should remain undisturbed, requiring the Defendants to disclose the A2L files as initially ordered. This decision underscored the importance of transparency and thoroughness in the disclosure process, particularly in complex technical litigation.

Legal representatives: Oliver Campbell KC and Gareth Shires (instructed by Leigh & Day & Co) for the Claimant, James Purnell and Lia Moses (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the Defendant.

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice Constable

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1339 (KB)