Huber v. Arck Credit Company, LLC et al
| John D. Huber |
| Arck Credit Company, LLC, Art Finance Partners, LLC, Andrew C. Rose and Christopher D. Krecke |
| 1:2012cv08175 |
| November 8, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Negotiable Instrument |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Defendant |
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
413
OPINION AND ORDER re: 356 MOTION to Vacate Restraining Notice, Enjoin Unreasonable Distribution of Collateral and for an Accounting filed by Timothy U. Nye, Nyehaus, Inc., Foundation 2021, 314 FIRST MOTION to Compel Timothy Nye, Foundation 20 21, Nyehaus and Sunshine Equity Partners FIRST MOTION for Sanctions and contempt against Timothy Nye, Foundation 20 21, Nyehaus and Sunshine Equity Partners filed by Christopher Krecke, Art Finance Partners, LLC, Andrew Rose, Arck Credit Company LLC: For the reasons stated above, the Nye Parties' motion is DENIED in its entirety, and Third Party Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In particular: (1) W ithin three weeks of the date of this Opinion and Order, Foundation 20 21, Nyehaus, and SEP shall pay $5,000 to the Clerk of Court; (2) As described above, by the same date, Nye, Foundation 20 21, and Nyehaus shall produce all documents, incl uding those purportedly covered by the attorney-client privilege, responsive to Third Party Plaintiffs' First Set of Document Requests and Nye and SEP shall file amended responses to the information subpoenas; (3) SEP shall produce a witness for deposition within thirty days of the date of this Opinion and Order; (4) The parties shall submit a proposal or competing proposals for the re-deposition of Nye and examination of his Fifth Amendment invocation within two weeks from the date o f this Opinion and Order; (5) Within two weeks of the date of this Opinion and Order, the Nye Parties shall turn over the thirteen pieces of art listed in the Wilbur affidavit; and (6) The Nye Parties shall pay 75% of Third Party Plaintiffs 9; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to an accounting submitted by Third Party Plaintiffs within thirty days of the date of this Opinion and Order. Any opposition to the accounting shall be filed within two weeks of its submissio n. Any failure by one of the Nye Parties to timely comply with this Opinion and Order will result in further sanctions of $100 per day until substantial compliance is attained. Finally, in conjunction with this motion, the parties filed cer tain documents under seal or in redacted form. (See, e.g., Docket Nos. 318, 368, 380). The Court is hard pressed to see the basis to keep those documents under seal or redacted, but will give the parties an opportunity to be heard on the issue. A ccordingly, any party wishing to keep any of those documents sealed or redacted shall file a letter brief, not to exceed five pages and no later than February 11, 2016, addressing the propriety of sealing or redacting the relevant documents in lig ht of the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 314 and 356. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/5/2016) (tn)
|
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
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.
