134 F. Supp. 3d 789
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- PNS filed a 1782 application to depose Eric Wolf for use in Dutch proceedings related to Yukos assets.
- Wolf is connected to Leonid Nevzlin, primary shareholder of GML, which allegedly received distributions from Foundations.
- PNS narrowed relief to a deposition on five subjects about the $250 million distribution and related matters.
- Dutch proceedings may require standing determinations and will consider Wolf’s personal knowledge, not necessarily his status as a party.
- The Court found the technical § 1782 prerequisites met and evaluated four discretionary factors.
- The court granted the deposition to be completed by October 5, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1782 prerequisites are satisfied | PNS satisfies residence, foreign-use, and interested-party requirements | Wolf argues constraints and Dutch standing issues complicate relief | Prerequisites satisfied; deposition allowed |
| Whether the four § 1782 discretionary factors support relief | Factors weigh in favor; Dutch receptivity not shown to be hostile | Factors may weigh against; standing and Dutch limitations contested | All four factors favor granting the deposition |
| Whether the deposition request is unduly intrusive or burdensome | Deposition limited in scope and directly relevant | Emails and connections suggest broader scope; potential burden | Not unduly burdensome; deposition approved |
| Whether standing and foreign-law considerations undermine relief | Dutch standing issue resolved by Netherlands court; evidence permissible | PNS standing disputed; Dutch rulings suggest limitations | Factor weighs in favor; Dutch standing is a matter for the Dutch court to decide in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Microsoft Corp. v. Microsof t Corp., 428 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (four-factor test for § 1782 discretionary relief; burden on discovery)
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (extraterritorial discovery considerations under § 1782)
- Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (twin aims of § 1782; broad discretion; international comity)
- Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (foreign tribunal receptivity; avoid speculative foreign-law assessments)
- John Deere Ltd. v. Sperry Corp., 754 F.2d 132 (3d Cir. 1985) (caution against extrapolating foreign-law practice; limits of 1782 inquiry)
- In re Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1997) (twin aims; efficient assistance to international litigation)