In Re: Application of Loudmila Bourlakova
24-3187-cv (L)
| 2d Cir. | Jun 23, 2025Background
- Loudmila and Veronika Bourlakova sought U.S. discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in a legal proceeding in the U.K., alleging that Oleg Bourlakov fraudulently dissipated family assets by transferring them to Vera and Nikolai Kazakov.
- The district court granted the Bourlakovas' ex parte application to subpoena Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C. (CHIPS).
- The Kazakovs intervened, seeking to quash the subpoena and vacate the order but were denied by the district court.
- After CHIPS produced the requested records to the Bourlakovas, the Kazakovs moved to compel production of all subpoenaed materials; the district court required production only of materials referencing the Kazakovs and their daughter.
- The Kazakovs appealed both the denial of their motion to quash and the limited denial of their motion to compel.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the case to determine whether the lower court erred in granting discovery, denying the motion to quash, and limiting compelled production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was §1782's 'for use' requirement met? | Records relevant to ongoing U.K. asset claims. | Discovery moot after freezing order withdrawn. | Requirement met; discovery still relevant. |
| Was the application made in bad faith? | Disclosed all document authenticity disputes. | Alleged false information submitted in U.K. court. | No bad faith; sufficient disclosure made. |
| Was non-disclosure of Florida litigation grounds for denial? | No misrepresentation or circumvention. | Omission or misunderstanding of scope misled court. | No grounds for denial; record showed no misrepresentation. |
| Should the court have compelled all subpoenaed materials? | Only relevant materials produced/disclosed. | All materials should be compelled under Rule 45 notes. | No abuse of discretion in limiting disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019) (sets standard for §1782 statutory requirements review)
- Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2012) (reviews motion to quash subpoena for abuse of discretion)
- In re BonSens.org, 95 F.4th 75 (2d Cir. 2024) (interprets "for use" requirement under §1782)
- Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2015) (addresses bad faith in §1782 applications)
- In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2002) (establishes district court's broad discretion in granting discovery)
- Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) (motion to compel discovery reviewed for abuse of discretion)