Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc. et al
| Republic of Turkey |
| Christie's Inc. and John Does 1-5 |
| 1:2017cv03086 |
| April 27, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Alison J. Nathan |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
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
483
ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to stay the Judgment pending appeal. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request in the alternative that this Court grant a temporary stay to allow Plaintiff to move for simi lar relief in the Court of Appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) and for resolution of that stay motion by the Court of Appeals. As stated above, Plaintiff must seek that relief promptly and move for a stay from the Second Circu it within the next seven days. Assuming Plaintiff does so, the stay will remain in effect pending a ruling on that motion. If Plaintiff does not seek relief from the Court of Appeals within the next seven days, the Court will lift the stay of its Judgment on October 13, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/6/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
473
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 472 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, in favor of Christie's Inc., Michael Steinhardt against Republic of Turkey. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Fi ndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated September 7, 2021, the Court holds that Turkey did not meet its initial burden to show ownership of the Idol. Thus, Turkey's claims for replevin and conversion fail and Defendant Steinhardt is entitled to a declaratory judgment that all right, title, and interest in and to the Idol is vested in Steinhardt. The Court further concludes that even if Plaintiff met its burden of establishing ownership of the Idol under the 1906 Decree, the Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on their laches defense. Judgment is entered in Defendants' favor and the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 9/7/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)
|
|
Filing
467
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 465 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File post-trial briefs addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Lawrence M. Kaye dated 5/3/21. Document filed by Republic of Turkey. Plaintiff's request for an extension of the briefing schedule is granted in part. Plaintiff's opening brief is now due May 10, 2021. Defendants' opposition brief is due May 31, 2021. Plaintiff's reply brief is due June 8, 2021. Defendants' request for permission to file a sur-reply on laches is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 5/3/2021) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
440
ORDER: The Court adjourned the bench trial for the rest of April 8, 2021 due to technical issues. The bench trial will resume on Friday, April 9, 2021 at 9:30 AM. Members of the public may access the proceeding by calling 1-703-552-8058 and entering conference code 536478. See Dkt. No. 432. SO ORDERED. ( Bench Trial set for 4/9/2021 at 09:30 AM before Judge Alison J. Nathan.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/8/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
433
ORDER: In advance of the bench trial, which is scheduled to start on April 5, 2021, the parties submitted a joint letter advising the Court that Plaintiff anticipates that the bench trial will last for ten days and that Defendants anticipate that the bench trial will last for nine days. Dkt. No. 424. The Court will permit ten days if needed, but it cannot sit on April 16, 2021. If the ten days are needed, the bench trial will end on Monday, April 19, 2021. The Court anticipates approximat ely 5.5 hours of testimony a day, which amounts to 55 hours total. The Court will divide the time equally, which gives each side 27.5 hours. With respect to Plaintiff's March 26, 2021 letter motion seeking clarification of the Courts March 22 , 2021 Order, Plaintiff requests leave to offer limited portions of Defendant Michael Steinhardt's 1996 deposition transcript (PTX 148). The Court reserves judgment until trial on the issue raised in the letter. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/2/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
418
ORDER: In light of Dkt. No. 417, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and submit a joint letter by March 29, 2021 informing the Court how many days they anticipate the bench trial will last and if they will split the trial hours evenly. If the parties have not come to an agreement, the joint letter shall notify the Court of the parties' respective positions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/22/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
415
ORDER: The parties have indicated that they wish to proceed remotely with the bench trial on April 5, 2021. Dkt. No. 412. The final pretrial conference scheduled for March 18, 2021 at 2:00 P.M. will be conducted telephonically. Dkt. No. 410. At t hat time, the parties shall call 888-363-4749 and enter access code 9196964#. Members of the public may use the same dial-in information but will not be permitted to speak during the conference. The parties shall be prepared to discuss, among othe r things, technology that would permit the Court and the parties to proceed remotely. The parties shall also be prepared to discuss whether they intend to submit a proposed stipulation and order regarding the conduct of the bench trial by remote means. See Optima Media Group Limited, et al. v. Bloomberg LP, Case No. 17-cv-1898 (AJN), Dkt. No. 136. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/16/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
410
ORDER: A bench trial in this matter is presently scheduled to commence on April 5, 2021. See Dkt. No. 370. A final pre-trial conference is hereby scheduled for March 18, 2021 at 2 p.m. By no later than March 8, 2021, the parties are ORDERED to mee t and confer and inform the Court whether they continue to wish to proceed with trial on April 5, 2021 or whether they would prefer to adjourn the bench trial for a brief period of time such that proceeding in-person would be more feasible. The pa rties may also opt to proceed with the bench trial remotely. As noted in Dkt. No. 370, courts in this district have already successfully conducted remote bench trials. See, e.g., Optima Media Group Limited v. Bloomberg L.P., et al. (Case No. 17-cv -1898-AJN, S.D.N.Y.); Ferring Pharm. Inc., et al. v. Serenity Pharm. LLC, et al. (Case No. 17- cv-9922-CM-SDA, S.D.N.Y.); SEC v. Paulsen, Case (Case No. 18-cv-6718-PGG, S.D.N.Y.); Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. The Putnam Advisory Company, LLC (Case No. 12- cv-7372-LJL-KNF, S.D.N.Y.)., (Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/18/2021 at 02:00 PM before Judge Alison J. Nathan.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/4/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
373
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 276 Motion to Seal Document ; granting 278 Motion to Seal Document. Thus, Plaintiff's request for permission to redact limited portions of Dkt. Nos. 220, 221-4, and 240, see Dkt. No. 278, is here by granted. For the same reasons, the Court grants Defendants request for permission to redact limited portions of Dkt. Nos. 195-4; 198; 220; 221-1; and 240. As for the sealed document, Defendants' interest in their sensitive commercial informat ion outweighs the value of this information to those monitoring the courts. See Dkt. No. 276 at 2-3 (providing justification for proposed sealing). Defendants' request to maintain Dkt. No. 226-6 under seal is therefore also granted. However, the Court denies Defendants' request to file their sealing application with redactions and to maintain Exhibits A-C under seal, see Dkt. No. 275. Defendants' requests do not comply with the Court's Individual Rules in Civil Cases. Pursuan t to Rule 4.B, parties are instructed to file motions for approval of sealed or redacted filings "in public view" without "confidential information sought to be filed under seal." It further provides that supporting papers may be filed under seal or redacted "only to the extent necessary to safeguard information sought to be filed under seal." Defendants' sealing application does not comply with this Rule; instead, Defendants' sealing application includes myriad confidential information--information they now seek to redact, in contravention of Rule 4.B. Because Defendants' sealing application and attached exhibits do not comply with this Rule, Defendants' request to file their application wi th redactions and attached exhibits under seal is DENIED. The Court will, however, permit Defendants to re-file a sealing application after removing all confidential information. The Court hereby GRANTS the parties' motions to seal with respect to all proposed redactions and sealing of motion papers. No later than one week from the date of this Order, the parties shall file on the public docket all motion papers related to parties' motions for summary judgment and Plaintiff's moti ons to exclude expert testimony, with redactions as approved in this Order, except for those documents for which the Court approved continued sealing. At that time, the parties shall also file unredacted copies of all documents redacted or under seal on ECF. The Court DENIES Defendants' request to file their sealing application with redactions and that Exhibits A-C to their application be maintained under seal. Within one week of the date of this Order, Defendants shall refile their motion to seal without any confidential information sought to be filed under seal. To the extent they seek sealing of supporting papers, they shall explain why such sealing is necessary to safeguard information sought to be filed under seal. This Order resolves Dkt. Nos. 276 and 278. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/11/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
370
ORDER: On August 11, 2020, the parties responded to the Court's July 29, 2020 order that they meet and confer to discuss the possibility of adjourning the commencement of the trial date or proceeding remotely. Dkt. No. 369. The parties req uested that the Court adjourn the trial until March 2021 or shortly thereafter. Dkt. No. 369. In light of the parties' request, the Court hereby reschedules the trial start date in this matter to April 5, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/13/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
368
ORDER. On July 28, 2020, the parties submitted a joint letter requesting that commencement of the trial in this matter be rescheduled to early February. Dkt. No. 367. The Court is willing to adjourn commencement of the trial due to the challenges pos ed by the COVID-19 public health crisis, and the Court would make every effort to try the case at the requested time in February. But because there are a number of trials that will need to be rescheduled, the Court will prioritize in-person criminal trials once those are safely feasible. As a result, the Court cannot guarantee that the trial in this matter will take place in early February, as the parties request, and as further set forth in this Order. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet, confer, and submit a joint letter to the Court indicating their preference on how to proceed by August 12, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/29/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
301
ORDER granting 300 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pre-Trial Submissions addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Document filed by Republic of Turkey. So ordered. Plaintiff's request is hereby granted. The Court adopts Plaintiff's proposed revised schedule for the filing of pretrial materials. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/30/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
290
ORDER granting 289 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/21/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
284
ORDER re: 268 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Seal Document, Order on Motion to Disqualify, 277 Letter filed by Republic of Turkey. Accordingly, the Court orders Sealed Records to unseal Dkt. No. 267. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2019) (kv) Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
281
ORDER: granting 274 Motion to Seal. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Exhibits K and L to the Declaration of Lawrence M. Kaye in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaim, ECF No. 203, shall be maintained un der seal; Poe shall be permitted to review the Court's Order and Opinion, ECF No. 267, which is currently under temporary seal; Within five business days, Poe shall propose any redactions to the Court's Order and Opinion concerning POE CONFIDENTIAL material. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/20/2019) (ama) Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
154
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 145 Letter Motion to Compel: For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants Letter Motion, and DENIES Plaintiffs cross-motion. It is hereby ORDERED that Ms. Boz and Mr. Bozkurtlar shall each appear in London for deposition on the same day on the topics as set forth above, and that the Republic pay the sum of $4,000 to the Defendants. Alternatively, if the Republic chooses to do so, it may consent to holding the depositions in New York. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 9/13/2018) (Aaron, Stewart)
|
|
Filing
142
OPINION AND ORDER re: 136 LETTER MOTION to Compel Republic of Turkey to produce documents and amend discovery answers: For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion, as set forth below: 1. Th e Court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel the Republic to provide amended responses to the RFAs. 2. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to compel Ms. Boz to testify at deposition regarding the Bowling Green settlement, which testimony sha ll be provided within thirty days of the date of this Order. 3. The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants' motion to compel the production of documents. The Republic shall produce the documents set forth below, within thirty days of the date of this O rder: (a) Requests to museums from the Directorate General for Museums and Cultural Property and/or the Combating Illicit Trafficking Unit for any other information or documents pertaining to Kiliya-type idols, and museums' responses to those re quests, dated 1989 or later. (b) Instructions to the Combating Illicit Trafficking Unit employees to research, investigate, or otherwise track museums or collections abroad for antiquities of Anatolian origin, dated 1989 or later. (c) Electronic comm unications from Ozgen Acar to the Ministry of Culture and/or Directorate General for Museums and Cultural Property regarding antiquities of Anatolian origin abroad, dated 1989 or later (d) Documents referenced by Dr. Zoroglu at his deposition regardi ng any emailed or hard copy instructions sent from the Director General's office to Directorate General employees in the Anti-Smuggling Unit to investigate particular collections in or after 1989. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate only the pending Letter-Motion at ECF No. 136, and not the pending motions at ECF Nos. 114 and 124. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 8/20/2018) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
129
OPINION AND ORDER re: 123 LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron; LETTER MOTION to Stay discovery on the tortious interference counts (Counts II and III) of Defendants' amended count erclaims (Dkt # 122) addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, filed by Republic of Turkey. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for a stay of discovery as to Counts II and III of the Amended Counterclaims. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending Letter-Motion at ECF No. 123. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 7/9/2018) (kl)
|
|
Filing
106
OPINION AND ORDER re: 100 LETTER MOTION to Continue Motion for Protective addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Counsel for the Defendants dated 5/4/2018. filed by Michael Steinhardt, Christie's Inc. The Court GRANTS IN PA RT and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Letter-Motion. Discovery shall be limited to Steinhardt's antiquities transactions up to and including December 31, 2006, provided, however, that regardless of time period, discovery shall be provided by Defendants regarding: (1) any transactions by Steinhardt in Anatolian antiquities; and (2) any antiquities transactions by Steinhardt which involve Klejman. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 5/14/18) (yv)
|
|
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 47 Letter Motion to Compel; granting 48 Motion to Amend/Correct ; granting 51 Motion to Intervene. In conclusion, the motion to compel is granted. However, Christie's need not provide the information imm ediately. Instead, the parties (including counsel for the Bidder/Intervenor) are ordered to meet and confer to come up with an appropriate protective order. The parties will submit their proposed protective order to the Court on or before August 4 th, 2017. Should they fail to reach agreement, they may submit instead a letter of no more than four pages laying out each party's position as to the appropriate scope of the order. This resolves docket numbers 47, 48, and 51. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/26/2017) (anc)
|
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.
