In Re Application of Gorsoan Limited for an Order Pursuant to 28 USC 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding
| 1:2018mc00431 |
| January 24, 2020 |
| 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
66
ORDER: The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has directed this Court to quash the subpoenas authorized by Judge Sullivan on October 16, 2018 and dismiss the petition to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED and the subpoenas authorized at docket entry 9 are QUASHED.The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 2/22/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 53 Letter Motion to Stay. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that a stay of further proceedings in this action, pending resolution of the respondents' appeal from the January 24, 2020 opinion and order, is warranted. The respondents' motion for a stay, Docket Entry No. 53, is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 7/21/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER denying without prejudice 47 Motion. As previously directed by the January 24, 2020 order, no later than June 30, 2020: (1) the respondents and the intervenor shall meet and confer with the petitioner to discuss the scope of the subpoena s served by the petitioner, including the petitioner's February 28, 2020 proposed modifications; and (2) file a joint letter, no longer than four pages inclusive of exhibits, informing the Court about any issue(s) that may remain unresolved after the parties meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the scope of the subpoenas without the Court's assistance. The petitioner's application, Docket Entry No. 47, is denied without prejudice. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 6/17/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
42
OPINION & ORDER re: 15 LETTER MOTION to Compel Respondents Zoe Bullock Remmel, Eugenia Bullock, Zoya Kuznetsova, and Stuart Sundlun to Respond to subpoenas that Court has already authorized addressed to Judge Ronnie Abrams from Car oline S. Donovan dated May 13, filed by Gorsoan Limited, 23 MOTION to Vacate 9 Order on Motion for Discovery, . MOTION to Quash Subpoenas Issued Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 . filed by Janna Bullock. Gorsoan' ;s motion to compel is granted, and Bullock's motion to vacate the order and quash the subpoenas is denied. The parties are to meet and confer regarding how to modify the subpoenas' scope, and the Court will refer this action to a magistr ate judge for review of that submission and Respondents' compliance with the modified subpoenas. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at docket numbers at 15 and 23. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 1/24/20) (yv)
|
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 Application of Gorsoan Limited for an Order Pursuant to 28 USC 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding | |
|---|---|
| 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.
