[sheet: Cover Sheet]

[sheet: Cover Sheet]
Field | Value
Case | ICC Arbitration Case No. 27914/MHM
Claimant | Kestrel Dynamics GmbH, Industriestraße 88, 70565 Stuttgart, Germany
Respondent | Whitmore Aerospace LLC, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22203
Claimant's Counsel | Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partnerschaft mbB (Dr. Maximilian Haber; Katrin Schäfer), Königstraße 35, 70173 Stuttgart, Germany
Respondent's Counsel | Calderwood & Harkness LLP (Theodore Langston, Partner; Vivienne St. Claire, Partner; Simone Laroche, Senior Associate; Jeffrey Park, Associate), 600 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022
Presiding Arbitrator | Prof. Dame Eleanor Fitzwilliam
Co-Arbitrator (Claimant's nominee) | Dr. Hans-Ulrich Perren
Co-Arbitrator (Respondent's nominee) | Hon. Robert A. Castillo
Place of Arbitration | New York, New York
Language of Arbitration | English
Applicable Arbitration Rules | ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021 edition)
Governing Law of MSA | State of New York (MSA § 22.1)
Procedural Order | Procedural Order No. 2, dated March 17, 2023
Date of Schedule | March 2023
Document Title | Respondent's Redfern Schedule — Document Production Requests
Underlying Contract | Master Supply Agreement for Titanium Alloy Turbine Housings, dated June 15, 2018, as amended by Amendment No. 1 (February 10, 2020) and Amendment No. 2 (September 3, 2021) (Ref: WAL-KDG-MSA-2018-0615)
C&H Engagement No. | 1019-00001
[sheet: Redfern Schedule]
Request No. | Requesting Party | Documents or Category of Documents Requested | Relevance and Materiality | Time Period | Responses / Objections by Requesting Party to Any Objections | Claimant's Response | Tribunal's Decision
1 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All internal quality testing reports, inspection records, certificates of conformity, and porosity measurement data generated by or on behalf of Kestrel Dynamics GmbH for each of the 14 lots of Ti-6Al-4V ELI titanium alloy turbine housings rejected by WAL between March 7, 2022 (Lot KDG-2022-0307) and September 19, 2022 (Lot KDG-2022-0919), including but not limited to non-destructive testing (NDT) results, metallurgical cross-section analyses, and records of porosity measurements against the contractual specification of ≤0.25% per WAL-SPEC-TH-401, Appendix C, Table 3. | Directly relevant to the central factual dispute: whether the 14 rejected lots (totaling 1,680 units) met the contractual porosity specification of ≤0.25%. Kestrel alleges in its Statement of Claim (¶¶ 43–58) that all lots conformed to specifications. Respondent's defense is that porosity levels ranged from 0.19% to 0.38%, exceeding the contractual limit. Kestrel's own internal testing records are material to assessing whether Kestrel was aware of non-conformance prior to shipment. Relevant to MSA § 8.4 (Rejection/Cure) and § 14.2(b) (Persistent Quality Failure). | January 1, 2022 – October 3, 2022
2 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All internal communications (including emails, memoranda, instant messages, and meeting minutes) within Kestrel Dynamics GmbH, including communications involving Friedrich Brenner (Managing Director), Luisa Erdmann (Commercial Director), and Dr. Stefan Voss (Head of Quality Assurance), concerning the quality, inspection, porosity testing, or specification compliance of the Products delivered to WAL under the Master Supply Agreement dated June 15, 2018 (WAL-KDG-MSA-2018-0615), including communications regarding any remedial or corrective actions taken or considered in respect of the 14 rejected lots. | Material to Respondent's defense that Kestrel was aware of quality deficiencies in the rejected lots and failed to implement adequate corrective actions within the 45-day amended cure period (per Amendment No. 2, dated September 3, 2021). Relevant to the issue of whether Kestrel's cure efforts were sufficient to avoid Persistent Quality Failure under § 8.4 and § 14.2(b). Also relevant to the credibility of Kestrel's factual witnesses (Brenner, Erdmann, Voss). | January 1, 2022 – November 7, 2022
3 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents relating to Kestrel's AS9100 Rev D certification, including audit reports (internal and external), corrective action requests (CARs), non-conformance reports (NCRs), management review records, and any communications with certification bodies, for the period during which the rejected lots were manufactured and delivered. | Relevant to Kestrel's obligation under the MSA to maintain AS9100 Rev D certification and to Respondent's contention that Kestrel's quality management system was deficient. Material to the Tribunal's assessment of whether Kestrel's manufacturing processes met the contractual quality standards. Relevant to MSA §§ 6.1, 8.4. | June 15, 2018 – October 3, 2022
4 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents and communications relating to any cure or rework efforts undertaken by Kestrel in response to WAL's rejection notices for each of the 14 rejected lots, including work orders, rework instructions, re-inspection reports, shipping records for replacement units, and any communications between Kestrel and WAL personnel (including Gerald Huang, VP Global Supply Chain Operations, and Dr. Ingrid Vollmer, SVP Engineering & Manufacturing) regarding such cure efforts. | Directly relevant to the determination of how many of the 14 rejections remained uncured beyond the 45-day cure period prescribed by MSA § 8.4 (as amended by Amendment No. 2). WAL contends that 7 of 14 rejected lots were uncured, exceeding the Persistent Quality Failure threshold of 3 uncured rejections in a rolling 12-month period. Material to the propriety of WAL's Notice of Termination for Cause issued October 3, 2022 under § 14.2(b). | March 1, 2022 – November 7, 2022
5 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All financial projections, budgets, profit-and-loss analyses, margin calculations, and internal financial models prepared by or on behalf of Kestrel relating to the Master Supply Agreement with WAL, including any documents underlying or supporting the claimed margin of 22.4% referenced in Claimant's damages quantification and the expert report of Prof. Dieter Langfeld of Rheinsberg Advisory AG. | Material to Respondent's challenge of Kestrel's damages claim of €47.3 million, including the lost-profit calculations for both the remaining contract term (€12.83 million) and the two optional renewal periods (€27.15 million). The accuracy of Kestrel's claimed 22.4% margin is central to the quantum dispute. Relevant to MSA § 8.7 (Exclusive Remedy / consequential damages waiver) and to the assessment of Prof. Langfeld's damages methodology. | June 15, 2018 – November 7, 2022
6 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents and communications relating to Kestrel's claimed unreimbursed rework costs of €3.42 million, including invoices, cost accounting records, labor and material cost breakdowns, and any internal approvals or authorizations for rework expenditures incurred in connection with the 14 rejected lots. | Material to the quantum of Kestrel's claim. Respondent contends that the rework cost claim of €3.42 million is inflated and unsupported. Also relevant to the consequential damages waiver under § 8.7, which limits Kestrel's remedy to replacement, credit, or termination upon Persistent Quality Failure. | March 1, 2022 – November 7, 2022
7 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents and communications between Kestrel and any third-party customers, suppliers, or business partners concerning quality issues, non-conformances, rejections, or complaints relating to titanium alloy turbine housings or similar precision-machined aerospace components manufactured by Kestrel during the period 2020–2022, including any non-conformance reports, customer complaints, and corrective action records. | Relevant to Respondent's defense that Kestrel experienced systemic quality issues in its manufacturing processes, not limited to the Products supplied to WAL. Material to the credibility of Kestrel's contention that WAL applied an unpublished porosity standard and that the rejected lots were fully conforming. Also relevant to Kestrel's reputational damages claim of €3.90 million — if Kestrel had pre-existing quality issues with other customers, the alleged reputational harm cannot be attributed to WAL's termination. | January 1, 2020 – November 7, 2022
8 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents relating to Kestrel's claim for reputational damages in the amount of €3.90 million, including any evidence of lost business opportunities, customer communications, declined orders, or reduced order volumes allegedly attributable to WAL's termination of the MSA on October 3, 2022. | Material to Respondent's contention that Kestrel's reputational damages claim is speculative and unsupported by objective evidence. Relevant to the enforceability of the consequential damages waiver in MSA § 8.7 under New York law (the governing law per § 22.1). | October 3, 2022 – April 28, 2023 (date of Statement of Claim)
9 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents and communications relating to Kestrel's expectations regarding the exercise by WAL of the two optional one-year renewal periods under the MSA, including any internal assessments, board presentations, projections, or communications with WAL regarding renewal. | Material to Respondent's defense against Kestrel's claim for €27.15 million in lost renewal-period profits. The renewal options were exercisable solely at WAL's discretion, and Respondent contends Kestrel had no legally cognizable expectation interest in renewal. Documents showing Kestrel's internal assessment of renewal likelihood are relevant to quantum. | June 15, 2018 – November 7, 2022
10 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents relating to the pricing and cost structure of the Products, including raw material costs for Ti-6Al-4V ELI titanium alloy, manufacturing overhead, labor costs, and any cost analyses supporting the unit prices set forth in the MSA (CY1 base price of €4,850.00 per unit, escalating at 2.5% per annum compounded), and any revisions or updates to such cost analyses during the term of the MSA. | Material to the assessment of Kestrel's claimed margin of 22.4% and to the quantum of all lost-profit claims. Relevant to the damages analysis to be performed by Respondent's expert, Dr. Nadia Ostrovsky of Ridgeline Economic Consulting LLC, and to challenging the methodology of Claimant's expert, Prof. Dieter Langfeld of Rheinsberg Advisory AG. | June 15, 2018 – November 7, 2022
11 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | Kestrel's audited and unaudited financial statements, management accounts, and segment reporting for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, to the extent not already publicly available, including any breakdown of revenue and profitability attributable to the WAL supply relationship. | Material to the verification of Kestrel's claimed margin of 22.4% and to the overall quantum of damages. Kestrel's reported annual revenue for FY2022 was €312 million; segment-level data is needed to assess whether the margin claimed on the WAL contract is consistent with Kestrel's overall financial performance. | FY2018 – FY2022
12 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents and communications between Kestrel and Haber Reinhardt Schlosser Partnerschaft mbB (or any other legal advisors) relating to the interpretation of the porosity specification in WAL-SPEC-TH-401, Appendix C, Table 3, including any legal opinions or analyses regarding the meaning of the ≤0.25% porosity limit, to the extent not protected by legal privilege. | Relevant to Kestrel's contention that WAL applied an unpublished porosity tolerance of ≤0.15% rather than the contractual ≤0.25%. Documents reflecting Kestrel's own understanding of the applicable specification are material to the Tribunal's determination of the correct standard. | June 15, 2018 – November 7, 2022
13 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents relating to Kestrel's manufacturing process for the Products, including process validation records, equipment calibration records for porosity measurement instruments, and any process change notifications or deviations implemented between 2020 and 2022 that may have affected the porosity characteristics of the turbine housings. | Material to Respondent's contention that Kestrel's manufacturing process degraded over time, leading to increased porosity levels in the Products. Relevant to the metallurgical expert evidence of Dr. Raymond Chow (Arclight Materials Science Inc.) and Dr. Martina Kessler (Albrecht Prüftechnik GmbH). | January 1, 2020 – September 30, 2022
14 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All documents relating to Kestrel's efforts to mitigate its alleged damages following receipt of WAL's Notice of Termination for Cause on October 3, 2022, including any efforts to secure alternative customers for the Products or to redeploy manufacturing capacity previously dedicated to the WAL contract. | Relevant to Kestrel's duty to mitigate damages under New York law. Material to the quantum of Kestrel's claimed lost profits for both the remaining term (€12.83 million) and renewal periods (€27.15 million). Kestrel's failure to mitigate, if established, would reduce recoverable damages. | October 3, 2022 – April 28, 2023
15 | Respondent (Whitmore Aerospace LLC) | All correspondence between Kestrel and WAL (including correspondence with Gerald Huang and Dr. Ingrid Vollmer) regarding the rejection of each of the 14 lots, the applicable quality standards, and any discussions regarding the porosity specification or incoming inspection procedures under WAL-QCP-100. | Material to the factual record regarding the rejection and cure process. Relevant to Respondent's defense that WAL consistently applied the contractual ≤0.25% porosity specification in WAL-SPEC-TH-401, Appendix C, Table 3, and that Kestrel was given proper notice and opportunity to cure under § 8.4 (as amended by Amendment No. 2, providing a 45-day cure period). | March 1, 2022 – October 3, 2022