dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 4 of 56question,” id. at 67, 70, the Second Circuit vacated andremanded both decisions. The Court of Appeals found thatPlaintiffs had not received adequate notice that Defendants’motion to dismiss the non-veil-piercing claims would beconverted to one for summary judgment. Id. at 66-70.Additionally, “because the court’s dismissal of the veilpiercingclaim relies, in part, on its dismissal of the nonveil-piercingclaims,” the Court of Appeals vacated both theSahu I and Sahu II judgments in their entirety. Id. at 70. Thecase was remanded to the district court “for what would appearto be relatively limited further proceedings in connection withconsideration of summary judgment.” Id.Despite the Second Circuit’s guidance as to “limited”further proceedings, Plaintiffs embarked on a discoveryexpedition worthy of Vasco da Gama. See Sahu v. Union CarbideCorp., 262 F.R.D. 308, 312 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (granting in partPlaintiffs’ “63 requests for the production of documents fromDefendants; 18 requests for the production of documents fromthird party Arthur D. Little, a consulting firm that assisted inthe environmental rehabilitation of the Bhopal site; a Rule30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant UCC; depositions of several ofDefendant UCC’s former officers; and 86 requests foradmission”); Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 04 Civ. 8825, 2010WL 909074 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) (denying cross motions for4