In Re: National Bank Trust, 3:20-mc-00085

National Bank Trust (NBT) obtained a ~US$900 million judgment in the U.K. against former shareholders including Sergey Belyaev; judgment enforcement proceedings are ongoing internationally.
After Belyaev and his wife moved to Avon, Connecticut, NBT applied under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for discovery from four U.S. banks and Connecticut Shotgun to locate assets and verify asset disclosures.
The Court previously granted the § 1782 application and authorized subpoenas (allowing bank statements back to Jan. 1, 2015 and Shotgun records to Jan. 1, 2013).
Belyaev moved for a protective order, arguing (1) U.S. sanctions on NBT’s majority owner (the Russian Central Bank and related designations) bar assistance to NBT or should lead the Court to deny discovery in its discretion, and (2) discovery should be limited to records dated Jan. 1, 2016 onward.
The record includes U.K. findings that Belyaev was an untruthful witness and evidence suggesting sizable purchases from Connecticut Shotgun in 2013–2015.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether U.S. sanctions bar or counsel against granting § 1782 discovery to NBT	Sanctions do not apply to NBT (Central Bank’s majority ownership does not automatically block NBT under Directive Four and OFAC guidance) and § 1782 discovery is not a "transaction" prohibited by sanctions	Sanctions on NBT’s majority owner (Central Bank) and related U.S. foreign-policy concerns mean the Court should refuse or stay discovery	Court denied the protective order: sanctions do not directly bar § 1782 discovery here, and foreign-policy concerns do not outweigh Intel factors; discovery may proceed
Appropriate temporal scope of discovery (Timetable)	Older records (pre-2016) are relevant to compare disclosed assets, verify transfers, and trace undisclosed assets; statutes of limitation in Connecticut do not negate relevance to U.K. enforcement	Limit discovery to Jan. 1, 2016 onward because of prior asset disclosures and Connecticut limitations law	Court denied the timetable restriction: prior timeframes remain appropriate (bank records back to Jan. 1, 2015; Shotgun records to Jan. 1, 2013)

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (Supreme Court) (establishes discretionary factors for § 1782 assistance)
Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (explains § 1782 statutory prerequisites and aims)
Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir.) (describes statutory elements for § 1782 relief)
In re Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (discusses district court discretion under § 1782)
Four Pillars Enters. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.) (upholds denial of § 1782 relief where applicant sought stolen trade secrets)
Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 399 F.3d 462 (2d Cir.) (refuses relief that would effectuate a transfer to an embargoed foreign entity)
Kiobel by Samkalden v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 895 F.3d 238 (2d Cir.) (denies § 1782 discovery when disclosure would undermine important U.S. policies)
In re Accent Delight Int’l Ltd., 869 F.3d 121 (2d Cir.) (emphasizes district courts’ gatekeeping discretion under § 1782)
United States v. Zubaydah, 142 S. Ct. 959 (Supreme Court) (recognizes state-secrets considerations may require dismissal of § 1782 requests)