1:25-mc-00194
S.D.N.Y.Jul 2, 2025Background
- Youngpoong Corporation applied for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in a shareholder derivative suit pending in Korean courts, alleging Korea Zinc directors breached their duty of care during the acquisition of Igneo Holdings LLC.
- Youngpoong owns 25.4% of Korea Zinc; PedalPoint Holdings, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Korea Zinc and is based in New York.
- Youngpoong sought subpoenas for documents and testimony from PedalPoint and several of its officers regarding the Igneo transaction and valuation.
- The amended application was ex parte; the court notes Respondents will have due process via right to move to quash.
- The statutory requirements for § 1782 are met for PedalPoint (jurisdiction, for use in foreign proceeding, and by an interested party), but not for individual officers because their residence in the district was not established.
- The court grants discovery as to PedalPoint but denies it as to individual officers without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1782 statutory requirements met for PedalPoint | Requirements met for PedalPoint under § 1782 | No rebuttal presented | Court finds all three requirements satisfied for PedalPoint |
| Authorization to subpoena PedalPoint officers | Officers should be subject as they possess relevant info | No rebuttal presented | Denied for officers due to lack of residence evidence |
| Discretionary Intel factors | All factors favor discovery; tailored/non-burdensome | No rebuttal presented | Court finds all four Intel factors favor grant of discovery |
| Possibility of burden or undue intrusiveness | Discovery is limited/specific to core transactions | No rebuttal presented | Finds discovery request not unduly intrusive or burdensome |
Key Cases Cited
- Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2012) (establishes requirements for § 1782 applications and ex parte procedure)
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) (sets out discretionary factors for § 1782 discovery)
- Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095 (2d Cir. 1995) (addresses foreign tribunals’ receptivity to § 1782 discovery)
- In re Application of Esses, 101 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 1996) (interested person status under § 1782)
- Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2015) (interprets the circumvention and burden factors in § 1782 applications)
- Certain Funds, Accounts and/or Inv. Vehicles v. KPMG, LLP, 798 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (sets out the three core § 1782 requirements)