1:22-mc-00348
S.D.N.Y.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Adele Zarzur sought discovery in the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to use in legal actions in Brazil concerning her late father's estate and alleged corporate mismanagement by her brothers, Ricardo and Roberto Zarzur.
- Zarzur's application involved subpoenas to U.S. financial institutions for information relevant to both a probate proceeding and a corporate proceeding in Brazil.
- The Court granted the unopposed § 1782 application in early 2024.
- Over a year after learning of the application, the Zarzur Brothers moved to intervene, vacate the court’s order, and quash the subpoenas, arguing interests in the subject assets and proceedings.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the brothers' motion as untimely; the brothers objected, claiming both procedural flaws and mootness due to dismissal of the Brazilian probate case.
- The District Court reviewed, rejected their arguments, adopted the recommendation in full, denied the motion to intervene, and allowed discovery to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Zarzur’s Argument | Zarzur Brothers’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Intervention | Brothers waited too long; knew of application in 2022. | Delay was justified; ex parte process meant intervention could wait. | Intervention was untimely; delay unjustified. |
| Judicial Efficiency | Resetting the litigation now would unfairly prejudice her case. | Postponing intervention avoided needless filings; better for court efficiency. | Delay was litigation strategy, not judicial efficiency. |
| Prejudice to Parties | Faces prejudice if discovery is further delayed/derailed. | Will be prejudiced if denied a chance to oppose the discovery. | Prejudice to Zarzur outweighed any for brothers. |
| Mootness | Brazilian proceedings still pending or on appeal. | Application moot: probate proceeding in Brazil dismissed; corporate matter stayed. | Application not moot; pending appeals and processes remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Floyd v. City of New York, 770 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 2014) (sets four-part test for intervention as of right under Rule 24, including requirement of timeliness)
- Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) (defines standard for clear error review)