Applicant ARIDA, LLC, 1:19-mc-00522

Applicants sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in Russian bankruptcy proceedings, alleging Vladislav Mishin ran a Ponzi-type scheme; subpoenas were issued to Vladislav, his brother Daniel Mishin, June Homes US, Inc., and others.
The Court previously granted the § 1782 application but narrowed the subpoenas’ scope in its December 21, 2020 Opinion; Daniel Mishin moved to vacate and then filed a Rule 59(e) motion to amend that decision.
Daniel’s principal contention on the Rule 59(e) motion is that Article 51 of the Russian Constitution (a familial privilege against incriminating close relatives) should preclude production and that the Euromepa “authoritative proof” standard should not apply to statutory privilege protections.
The parties submitted competing Russian-law expert declarations; Applicants’ experts argued Article 51 does not bar production of corporate/business materials, while Mishin’s experts urged a broader familial privilege.
The Court concluded that Euromepa’s authoritative-proof standard governs claims that foreign law bars discovery under § 1782, found no authoritative proof that Article 51 would protect the subpoenaed materials as narrowed, and denied Mishin’s Rule 59(e) motion, ordering compliance with the subpoenas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Rule 59(e) relief	Mishin sought amendment, arguing error in applying Euromepa and misapprehension of Article 51	Applicants argued no intervening change, new evidence, or clear error	Denied — Mishin failed to show change, new evidence, or clear error
Whether Euromepa authoritative-proof standard applies to foreign privileges under § 1782	Euromepa should not govern statutory privilege protections; the statute alone controls	Euromepa applies; courts require authoritative proof that a foreign tribunal would reject evidence	Held — Euromepa standard applies to claims that foreign privilege prevents production
Scope and effect of Russian Article 51 (familial privilege) on subpoenas	Article 51 protects close relatives from compelled testimony and should bar production of related materials	Applicants’ experts: Article 51 is narrow, excludes corporate/business records and permits question-by-question invocation	Held — No authoritative proof or clear directive that Article 51 shields the subpoenaed materials as narrowed
Significance of new or renewed expert declarations	Mishin relied on supplemental expert declarations to show privilege applies	Applicants pointed to conflicting experts and lack of authoritative proof; renewed experts not new evidence	Held — Expert skirmishing did not constitute newly discovered evidence or authoritative proof; relief denied

Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir. 1964) (rule against relitigation of issues after full adversarial presentation)
Metzler Inv. GmbH v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 970 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2020) (standards for Rule 59(e) relief)
Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (district courts should require authoritative proof that foreign tribunal would reject evidence before denying § 1782 aid)
In re Application of Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997) (applied Euromepa authoritative-proof standard to foreign-privilege claim under § 1782)
Certain Funds, Accounts &/or Inv. Vehicles v. KPMG, L.L.P., 798 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (courts should avoid extensive inquiry into foreign evidentiary rules under § 1782)
Ecuadorian Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corp., 619 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2010) (applied authoritative-proof standard to privilege claims in § 1782 context)
Mangouras v. Squire Patton Boggs, 980 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2020) (choice-of-law principles for determining which nation’s privilege law applies)