In Re Application of Gorsoan Limited for an Order Pursuant to 28 USC 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, 1:18-mc-00431

Oct. 15, 2018: Court granted Gorsoan Ltd. an ex parte §1782 order authorizing subpoenas to four respondents in aid of a Cyprus proceeding.
May 13, 2019: Gorsoan moved to compel responses to those subpoenas; Janna Bullock later intervened and sought vacatur/quash.
Jan. 24, 2020: District judge granted Gorsoan’s motion to compel, denied intervenor’s motion, directed meet-and-confer to narrow subpoena scope, and referred compliance review to the magistrate.
Feb. 21, 2020: Respondents and intervenor filed notices of appeal but did not move for a stay under Fed. R. App. P. 8; Gorsoan submitted proposed narrowed requests (Feb. 28) and sought enforcement (Apr. 7).
June 17, 2020 (magistrate order): Court held the unstayed Jan. 24 order remains operative during appeal, rejected respondents’ contention that the district court lacked authority to act, denied Gorsoan’s application without prejudice, and ordered a meet-and-confer and a joint four‑page letter by June 30, 2020.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court may enforce an unstayed order after a notice of appeal	District court retains power to enforce unless a stay is granted; respondents must comply	Filing a notice of appeal divested district court of authority over aspects on appeal	Court held the court retains power to enforce an unstayed order during appeal; respondents’ divestiture argument rejected
Whether respondents were required to seek a stay under Fed. R. App. P. 8	Respondents did not seek a stay and therefore must comply with the Jan. 24 order	Respondents asserted no obligation to seek a stay because §1782 discovery orders are immediately appealable	Court noted Rule 8 and that no stay was requested; absence of stay leaves order operative
Timeliness of raising a stay argument in a reply letter	Stay argument was raised too late (should have been earlier)	Respondents first argued in reply that a stay would be justified	Court rejected the late-raised stay argument as untimely
Whether Gorsoan’s proposed modified subpoenas should be enforced now	Gorsoan asked the court to find its Feb. 28 revisions reasonable and compel production within 30 days	Respondents argued the court lacked authority to grant new relief while appeal pending	Court denied Gorsoan’s application without prejudice, ordered parties to meet-and-confer and file a joint letter about unresolved scope issues

Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 647 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (district court retains power to enforce an unstayed judgment during the pendency of an appeal)
In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas, 235 F. Supp. 3d 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (arguments raised for the first time in reply need not be considered)