In Re: Ex Parte Application of Iraq Telecom Limited for an Expedited Order to Take Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782
| 1:2018mc00458 |
| August 13, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Other |
| M 77 Application to have subpoena issued to person living in this district re: action in foreign cou |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
108
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, by May 26, 2020, the parties shall file a joint letter no greater than two pages, single spaced, stating whether the U.S. Banks have complied with the subpoena. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/21/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
106
OPINION AND ORDER: As three factors strongly weigh against granting the stay, and one factor is neutral, the motion to stay is denied. The stay pending a ruling on the motion to stay is also lifted. The U.S. Banks shall fully respond to the subpoena within 30 days. Case Stay Lifted. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/15/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
101
MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 100 Motion to Stay. ENDORSEMENT: Petitioner shall file by March 17, 2020, a response to Intervenor's emergency motion to stay. The response shall state the consequences of the Court denying Intervenor's motion. The motion to stay is GRANTED for a limited duration, and shall remain in place until the Court rules on the emergency motion. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/11/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
98
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Objections to the February Opinion are overruled. The stay pending a ruling on the Objections is lifted. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/4/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER granting 92 Motion to Stay. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion to stay is GRANTED for a limited duration, and shall expire on February 18, 2020. The purpose of the stay is to maintain the status quo until the Objection is adjudicated. It is further ORDERED that Petitioner, and any other interested party, may file a single letter no later than February 18, 2020, stating any objections to continuing the motion to stay. The letter may be no greater than three-pages, single spaced. The motion to stay will be continued if no letter is filed. It is further ORDERED that Petitioner, and any other interested party, may file a single memorandum in response to the Objection filed by Korek Telecom Company and Intervenor, no later than February 27, 2020. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/13/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
90
STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material...SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 2/7/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
84
OPINION & ORDER re: 76 LETTER MOTION for Local Rule 37.2 Conference re Motion to Stay Pending Objections, Dkt 75 addressed to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang from Duane L. Loft dated November 4, 2019. filed by Sirwan Saber Mustafa. Contra ry to Mustafa's argument, Judge Wang did not change the standard to an impossibility test. The August Opinion finds that the proceedings are in reasonable contemplation because the complaints had already been filed in the DIFC Courts. And Jud ge Wang observed that by the October Opinion one defendant had already been served. The statement in the October Opinion that "Intervenors have not presented any evidence that service in the DIFC litigation is impossible" was to explain o n a motion for reconsideration that "Petitioner's delays in service [were] due to needing to work with various governmental authorities" and were not indicative that the case would not proceed. The Objection to the October Opinion is OVERRULED. The Court of Clerk is respectfully directed to close Docket No. 76. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/18/2019) (cf)
|
|
Filing
62
OPINION & ORDER re: 53 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 47 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Korek Telecom Company LLC, 51 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 47 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Sirwan Saber Mustafa. For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors' motions for reconsideration are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close ECF 51 and 53. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 10/10/2019) (rro)
|
|
Filing
47
OPINION & ORDER re: 1 MOTION for Discovery filed by In Re: Ex Parte Application of Iraq Telecom Limited for an Expedited Order to Take Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's discovery ap plication pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is GRANTED. Petitioner is hereby authorized to serve its proposed subpoenas, attached at ECF 2-1. The correspondent banks, Citibank, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Wells Fargo, and The Bank of New York Mellon , are directed to respond to the subpoenas within 30 days of the date of this Order, and shall meet and confer with Petitioner as necessary. Petitioner and the correspondent banks shall submit a joint status letter by August 30, 2019. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close ECF 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 8/13/2019) (rro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: In Re: Ex Parte Application of Iraq Telecom Limited for an Expedited Order to Take Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
