The Federal Republic of Nigeria et al v. VR ADVISORY SERVICES, LTD. et al
| 1:2020mc00209 |
| May 14, 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
82
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on The VR Respondents' Notice of Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order dated December 13, 2022 (ECF 76): denying as moot 81 Motion for Reconsideration re 81 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 76 Order o n Motion for Discovery filed by VR ADVISORY SERVICES (USA) LLC, VR GLOBAL ONSHORE FUND, L.P., VR ARGENTINA RECOVERY ONSHORE FUND II, L.P., VR ADVISORY SERVICES, LTD., Jeffrey Johnson, Ashok Raju. ENDORSEMENT: Application DENIED as moot. The Order dated December 13, 2022, granted discovery only as to "non-privileged, relevant documents requested at Dkt. No. 75-2, which is Applicants' narrowed request, with certain exceptions as set forth below" (Dkt. No. 76 at 5). The scope of discovery did not extend to those search terms proposed at Dkt. No. 58-2, which are the subject of this motion.. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/28/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Letter Motion for Discovery. It is hereby ORDERED that Applicants motion to compel discovery is GRANTED in part. VR Respondents shall produce non-privileged, relevant documents requested at Dkt. No . 75-2, which is Applicants narrowed request, with certain exceptions as set forth below. VR Respondents need not, and should not, produce documents already produced in the action proceeding before Judge Figueredo. It is further ORDERED that the scop e of discovery shall be limited to categories three, five, six, seven and eight in Production Criteria at Dkt. No. 75-2. Categories one, two and four are excluded as overly broad. It is further ORDERED that discovery shall extend to all seven custodi ans proposed by VR Respondents. The breadth is warranted by the initial search term results at Dkt. No. 58-2. And there is no basis to exclude custodians du Toit or Deitz, as VR Respondents request. Given their positions at VR Respondents and the sea rch term results, they may well have relevant documents. It is further ORDERED that discovery shall be limited to the period from July 1, 2017, to October 31, 2021, for the custodians, the date range selected by VR Respondents in producing the initia l set of 1,270 documents. For the network drive, discovery is limited to the period from January 1, 2006, the year P&ID was incorporated, to October 31, 2021. It is further ORDERED discovery shall extend only to those search terms previously proposed by Applicants, prior to the discovery of Mr. McNaughtons whistleblower email. As to the remaining terms, discovery is denied without prejudice. No showing has been made that those terms are within the relevant topics determined above. By December 16 , 2022, Applicants may file a letter, not to exceed three pages, showing that those search terms are relevant, and by December 21, 2022, VR Respondents shall respond. It is further ORDERED that VR Respondents shall produce the documents ordered above on a rolling basis to be substantially completed by January 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 58.. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/13/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, by October 21, 2022, the parties shall file a joint letter with proposed next steps in this action. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/13/2022) (ate)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the telephonic conference scheduled for October 12, 2022, at 4:00 P.M., is adjourned to October 12, 2022, at 5:15 P.M., on the following conference line: 888-363-4749, access code: 558-3333. ( Initial Conference set for 10/12/2022 at 05:15 PM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/12/2022) (ate)
|
|
Filing
54
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 5/9/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
38
OPINION & ORDER: granting 20 Motion to Vacate ; terminating 20 Motion to Quash; terminating 20 Motion to Stay. For foregoing reasons, the Court grants Respondents motion and vacates its grant of discovery pursuant to § 1782. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket 20 and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/06/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER: The Court will hold oral argument in this case on Thursday, October 22, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., on the respondents' pending motion to vacate this Court's order approving discovery. This argument will be held telephonically. The parties s hould call into the Court's dedicated conference line at (888) 363-4749, and enter Access Code 468-4906, followed by the pound (#) key. Counsel are directed to review the Court's Emergency Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, found at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-paul-engelmayer, for the Court's procedures for telephonic conferences and for instructions for communicating with chambers. (Telephone Conference set for 10/22/2020 at 02:00 PM before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/18/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
24
MEME ENDORSEMENT with respect to 20 Motion to Vacate ; with respect to 20 Motion to Quash; with respect to 20 Motion to Stay. ENDORSEMENT: Petitioner's opposition, if any, is due by July 10, 2020. Respondent's reply is due by July 17, 2020. Section 1782 discovery, previously authorized by this Court's order of May 14, 2020, Dkt. 10, is hereby stayed pending resolution of the motion to vacate. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/29/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The application for discovery from VR Advisory Services, Ltd. ("VR Advisory"), VR Advisory Services (USA) LLC ("VR Advisory USA"), VR Capital Group, Ltd. ("VR Capital"), VR Global Ons hore Fund, L.P. ("VR Onshore"), VR Argentina Recovery Onshore Fund II, L.P. ("VR Argentina"), and directors and officers Richard Dietz, Jeffrey Johnson, and Ashok Raju (collectively VR Respondents) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 17 82 is granted; 2. The Applicants are authorized to take discovery relating to the issues identified in its application from VR Respondents in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court, including by serving on VR Respondents a subpoena duces tecum for a deposition and the production of the documents listed in the form subpoenas attached as Exhibits 1 - 8 to the Declaration of Alexander D. Pencu, Esq.; 3. VR Respondents are hereby directed to comply with the subpoena in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court; 4. Alexander D. Pencu of Meister Seelig & Fein, LLP is hereby appointed to issue, sign and serve the subpoenas upon VR Respondents; and 5. This Court shall retain such jurisdiction as is necessary to effectuate the terms of such subpoenas. So ordered. Granting 1 Motion for Discovery. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 5/14/2020) (rjm)
|
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: The Federal Republic of Nigeria et al v. VR ADVISORY SERVICES, LTD. et al | |
|---|---|
| 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.
