In Re: Application of BM Brazil 1 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistratgia, BM Brazil 2 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistratgia, and ANRH Cooperatief U.A.
Case Number: 1:2023mc00208
Filed: June 29, 2023
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Nature of Suit: Other
Cause of Action: M 77 Application to have subpoena issued to person living in this district re: action in foreign cou
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 7, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 74 OPINION AND ORDER re: 59 LETTER MOTION to Compel addressed to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein from Jonathan Schaffer-Goddard dated April 10, 2024. filed by Application of BM Brazil 1 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistratg ia, BM Brazil 2 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistratgia, and ANRH Cooperatief U.A.. For the foregoing reasons, Appian's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Moelis must produce the documents corresponding to priv ilege log entries 28, 30, 36, 37, 53, 56, 59, 79, 85. These documents shall be produced by Friday, May 10, 2024. Conversely, Moelis may withhold on the basis of Sibanye's privilege assertions the documents corresponding to privilege log entrie s 1, 26, 27, 38, 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 49, 52, 60, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 80. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 59. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary Stein on 5/7/2024) (tg)
April 22, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' competing letters and accompanying declarations concerning Appian's motion to compel. (See Dkt. Nos. 59-61, 65-70). Having begun its review of these materials in advance of oral argument on Thursday, April 25, 2024, the Court has decided to conduct an in camera review of the 32 unique documents that Sibanye and Moelis seek to withhold as privileged. The Court would like to conduct that review prior to oral argument. Therefore, counsel for Sibanye and Moelis are ORDERED to coordinate and provide these documents as soon as possible by (1) emailing electronic copies to the Court's chambers email address and (2) sending two hard copies by overnight delivery to chambers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary Stein on 4/22/2024) (tg)
April 12, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDER: In view of the upcoming schedule for depositions and trial, the Court anticipates deciding the instant dispute (see Dkt. Nos. 59, 62) on the basis of the parties' letter submissions and accompanying declarations, rather than receiving more formal briefs. Accordingly, the normal page limits for letter submissions shall not apply. Sibanye may have up to six single-spaced pages for its response due by Wednesday, April 17, 2024. Appian shall have until Friday, April 19, 2024 to submit a reply, if it wishes, of up to three single-spaced pages. The Court will hold oral argument on the motion at Docket Number 59 on Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 9A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. SO ORDERED. ( Responses due by 4/17/2024, Replies due by 4/19/2024., Oral Argument set for 4/25/2024 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gary Stein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary Stein on 4/12/2024) (tg)
March 11, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 55 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material...SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary Stein on 3/11/2024) (vfr)
February 12, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 22 Motion to Intervene filed by Sibanye BM Brazil (Pty) Ltd., Sibanye Stillwater Limited, 20 Motion to Vacate,, Motion to Quash,, Motion to Stay, filed by Ashley Chen, Moelis & Company LLC, Patrick Loftus-Hills, 30 Motion to Compel, filed by Application of BM Brazil 1 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistratgia, BM Brazil 2 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistratgia, and ANRH Cooperatief U.A., 47 Report an d Recommendations. In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. See ECF No. 47. In addition, the Report and Recommendation expressly called the parties' attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and no request for an extension of time to object has been made. Accordingly, the parties have waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Fra nk v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992). Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed the petition and the Report and Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 20, 22 and 30. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 2/12/2024) (tg)
June 29, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER granting 1 Motion for Discovery. Accordingly, the application is GRANTED. Applicants U.S. counsel, Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, is authorized to issue and serve subpoenas in a substantially similar form as those attached as Exhibits 3 , 4, and 5 to the Declaration of Kevin D. Benish, Dkt Nos. 4-3, 4-4 and 4-5, on Respondents as described in the Benish Declaration Paragraph 15, together with a copy of this Order, no later than fourteen days from the date of this Order. No later th an the same date, and before serving the subpoenas on Respondents, Applicants shall provide actual notice and courtesy copies of the subpoena, application and supporting documents to the party or parties against whom the requested discovery is like ly to be used through any such party's counsel, or if the identity of such party's counsel is unknown, on that party directly. See In re Application of Sarrio, S.A., 119 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 1997) ("[T]he ultimate targets of a  7; 1782 discovery order issued to third parties have standing to challenge the district court's power to issue a subpoena under the terms of an authorizing statute." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Applicants shall promptly file proo f of such service on ECF. Respondents are furthered ordered to preserve all relevant and potentially relevant evidence in their possession, custody or control until further order of the Court. Additionally, nothing in this Order shall be construed to prevent or otherwise foreclose Applicants from seeking modification of this Order or leave of Court to serve subpoenas on any additional persons or entities. It is further ordered that the foregoing is without prejudice to the rights of the Resp ondents to file a motion to vacate or quash. Such motions must be filed by no later than July 28, 2023; Applicants' response to any such motion is due by no later than August 11, 2023; and replies are due by no later than August 25, 2023. Any further proceedings (including any discovery taken pursuant to this Order) shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court's Local Rules (https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rules) and the Court's Individual Rules and Prac tices in Civil Cases (https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jessica-g-l-clarke). If the parties believe that a protective order is appropriate or necessary, they shall file a joint proposed protective order on ECF, mindful that the Court will strike or m odify any provision that purports to authorize the parties to file documents under seal without Court approval. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). In the event of any dispute concerning the subpoe na or any proposed protective order, the parties shall meet and confer before raising the dispute with the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 1 and to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 6/29/2023) (tg)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: In Re: Application of BM Brazil 1 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistratgia, BM Brazil 2 Fundo de Investimento em Participacoes Multistratgia, and ANRH Cooperatief U.A.
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.

Why Is My Information Online?