Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd.
1:24-cv-09918
| S.D.N.Y. | Feb 19, 2025Background
- Goldeneye Advisors, LLC (plaintiff) filed a letter motion to obtain discovery from non-party Pavel Romanovski under the Hague Convention during the pendency of related arbitration in Israel.
- The discovery sought relates to the same investment at issue in both the U.S. litigation and Israeli arbitration.
- Defendant Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. opposed the motion, arguing it was premature before a motion to compel arbitration had been resolved.
- A conference was held by Magistrate Judge Figueredo to address the dispute over the motion for discovery.
- Defendants represented that Mr. Romanovski would be available for deposition in the future, undermining urgency claims by the plaintiff.
- The court denied the discovery motion, citing the lack of "extraordinary circumstances" justifying pre-arbitration court-ordered discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery from a non-party should be permitted before arbitration | Plaintiff would be unable to obtain this discovery in the future, risking loss of crucial evidence | Discovery is not urgent; Romanovski is available for deposition later, and arbitration is pending | Court denied pre-arbitration discovery; no extraordinary circumstances shown |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntire v. China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (discovery in aid of arbitration generally not permitted absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Falcone Bros. P’ship v. Bear Stearns & Co., 699 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (court will deny pre-arbitration discovery unless immediate necessity is shown)
- Oriental Com. & Shipping Co. v. Rosseel, N.V., 125 F.R.D. 398 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (extraordinary circumstances required for pre-arbitration discovery)