1:24-mc-00557
S.D.N.Y.Aug 1, 2025Background
- The Republic of Türkiye sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from two U.S. banks (Bank of America, Wells Fargo) for financial records related to Cevdet Turkyolu, a U.S.-based member of the Gülen movement, and four others, purportedly for use in a Turkish insider trading prosecution and a money laundering investigation.
- The court granted Türkiye's ex parte application and the subpoenas were served; Turkyolu was not given prior notice.
- Turkyolu moved to quash the subpoenas and vacate the order, arguing improper motive (harassment of political opponents), lack of notice as required by Rule 45, and failure to meet the statutory requirements of § 1782.
- Key factual disputes included the status of the Turkish criminal matters, the adequacy of Türkiye’s supporting documentation, and allegations of government abuse against Gülen movement members.
- The court analyzed compliance with the Federal Rules, the substantive "for use in a foreign proceeding" requirement, and discretionary factors including potential for political abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Turkyolu's Argument | Türkiye's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 45(a)(4) Notice Violation | Türkiye failed to notify Turkyolu before serving bank subpoenas. | Rule 45 notice not required; Turkyolu is a fugitive or non-appearing party in Turkey. | Türkiye violated Rule 45(a)(4)'s notice requirement; subpoenas quashed. |
| "For Use" in Foreign Proceeding | Türkiye's application is not for use in an actual, existing foreign proceeding; insufficient evidence and relevance. | Application relates to ongoing prosecution and money laundering investigation in Turkey, thus meets standard. | Application fails to show discovery is for use in concrete criminal proceedings; requirement not satisfied. |
| Political Harassment/Abuse | Application is pretext for a campaign against political opponents; risk of abuse. | Legitimate law enforcement investigation and prosecution; no improper motive. | Discretionary factors weighed against discovery, given breadth of request and credible allegations of political motivation. |
| Remedy/Relief from Ex Parte Order | Only need to show statutory or rule violation/inadequacy for relief. | Relief from order requires exceptional circumstances or a specific basis under Rule 45, as Turkyolu had not previously appeared. | Because Turkyolu was not notified ex ante, a full de novo review is warranted; relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (U.S. 2004) (sets the discretionary factors for § 1782 applications)
- Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2012) (establishes requirements for § 1782 applications and motions to quash)
- Nat’l Broad. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999) (holds de novo review appropriate when affected party not notified prior to § 1782 order)
- Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2015) (explains "for use" requirement under § 1782)
- Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (recognizes that bad faith or harassment can justify denial of discovery under § 1782)
- Gushlak v. Gushlak, 486 F. App’x 215 (2d Cir. 2012) (ex parte § 1782 discovery is appropriate so long as parties can later move to quash)