Eletson Holdings Inc. and Eletson Corporation, Cross-Respondents, -v- Levona Holdings Ltd., Cross-Petitioner, and Aparo Limited, Fentalon Limited, and Desimusco Trading Limited, Intervenors.
1:23-cv-07331
S.D.N.Y.Aug 8, 2025Background
- Intervenors moved to compel discovery and a deposition from Quinn Emanuel (QE), counsel for Levona, relating to documents allegedly relevant to Levona’s argument for equitable tolling in challenging an arbitration award.
- The disputed documents (the "At-Issue Documents") arose in a related bankruptcy proceeding after the arbitration had concluded and were subject to a protective order.
- Levona pursued access to these documents through the bankruptcy court, facing persistent opposition from Eletson, the other party to the arbitration; eventually, the bankruptcy court permitted limited use of the documents.
- Intervenors, as parties with a beneficial interest in the arbitration award, sought discovery and deposition from Levona's new counsel, QE, arguing the information was necessary to challenge Levona’s diligence in pursuing its rights (an element of equitable tolling).
- QE resisted on grounds of attorney-client privilege, undue burden, and that relevant information was already available from Levona directly.
- The Court denied Intervenors’ motion to compel and granted QE’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel for Levona (QE) must produce documents | Discovery is needed into QE’s knowledge, actions, and timing | Privileged, duplicative, undue burden—seek from Levona | Motion to compel denied; insufficient need, privilege applies |
| Whether QE must submit to deposition on these topics | QE knowledge is uniquely relevant to equitable tolling | Testimony would be duplicative and privileged | Motion to quash granted; facts available from Levona or public record |
| Existence of an at-issue waiver of privilege by Levona | By asserting equitable tolling, Levona waived privilege | No waiver—Levona's legal strategy, not advice, at issue | No waiver found; privilege and work product protections remain |
| Availability and relevance of requested information | Only QE can provide the necessary insight | Information already available from Levona and was documented | Information sought not relevant or not uniquely available from counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard for motions to compel or quash subpoenas at the court's discretion)
- United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000) (court’s discretion in discovery matters)
- In re Subpoena Issued to Dennis Friedman, 350 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard for depositions of attorneys; balancing test)
- United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011) (elements of attorney-client privilege)
- United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194 (2d Cir. 1998) (scope of work product doctrine)
- Chapman v. ChoiceCare Long Island Term Disability Plan, 288 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2002) (lack of diligence by attorney not grounds for equitable tolling)
- In re County of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008) (limits to at-issue waiver of attorney-client privilege)