1:24-mc-00306
S.D.N.Y.Nov 2, 2024Background
- Applicants Philippe Martinez and MSR Media SKN Ltd. sought discovery from Standard Chartered Bank and Bank of New York Mellon under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in ongoing defamation litigation in St. Kitts and Nevis.
- The foreign litigation arose after Martinez and MSR accused Caribbean Galaxy Parties and Timothy Harris (former Prime Minister) of manipulating St. Kitts and Nevis's Citizenship by Investment (CBI) program.
- The Applicants' letter alleged fraud, undercutting of CBI unit prices, and collusion between Caribbean Galaxy Parties and government officials.
- Plaintiffs (defamation claimants in St. Kitts and Nevis) and Intervenor argued the discovery was a pretext to aid a parallel Florida RICO action.
- The requested subpoenas targeted financial records to support the Applicants’ truth defense in the foreign defamation case.
- Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the application but narrowing the subpoenas to reduce overbreadth.
Issues
| Issue | Martinez's Argument | Caribbean Galaxy Parties'/Harris's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the respondent banks satisfy § 1782's jurisdictional requirement? | Both have NY branches and contacts; discovery involves NY activities. | Standard Chartered Bank not found in SDNY; no specific account/transaction identified. | Banks found in SDNY—personal jurisdiction met. |
| Is discovery “for use” in a foreign proceeding? | Records are relevant to defamation defense in St. Kitts and Nevis. | Discovery meant for parallel RICO action; not genuine foreign use. | Applicants met “for use” requirement; dual use permissible. |
| Are Applicants “interested persons”? | Defendants in the foreign defamation suit; thus, interested parties. | Not disputed. | Applicants are “interested persons.” |
| Are the subpoena requests overly broad/unduly burdensome? | Scope (2018-present, all CBI-related) appropriate for claims/allegations. | Requests temporally and substantively overbroad; include irrelevant parties/transactions. | Scope should be narrowed to CBI program, claimants, and relevant individuals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (sets factors for discretionary § 1782 discovery)
- Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2015) (clarifies § 1782 requirements and no exhaustion necessary)
- In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019) (interprets "resides or is found" language in § 1782 to personal jurisdiction standards)
- Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (liberal approach to § 1782 and foreign tribunal receptivity)
- Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Bros. Co. v. Standard Chartered Int’l (USA) Ltd., 785 F. Supp. 2d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Standard Chartered Bank found to reside in SDNY for § 1782)