Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 2009 WL 1456573 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2009)
In this case, defendant Arab Bank moved to compel production of documents, pursuant to subpoena, by non-parties Israel Discount Bank, Ltd. (“IDB”), its indirect, wholly –owned subsidiary, Israel Discount Bank of New York (“IDBNY”), and Bank Hapoalim (“Hapoalim”). Arab Bank served its first subpoena on IDBNY seeking, among other things, the production of IDB documents located in Israel. Arab Bank also served a second subpoena on IDBNY seeking “the production of identical information from its parent, IDB.” Hapoalim was also served with a subpoena seeking the production of documents located in Israel. IDBNY generally complied with the first subpoena but objected to the production of IDB documents located in Israel. As to the second subpoena, IDBNY accepted service on behalf of itself, but not IDB, and IDB resisted the production of the documents sought based on the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction. Hapoalim also resisted production arguing that much of the information sought was protected from discovery by Israeli law. The court denied Arab Bank’s motion as to IDB documents located in Israel upon finding that IDBNY lacked sufficient control of such documents and because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over IDB. The court also denied Arab Bank’s motion as to those documents protected by Israeli law, but indicated its willingness to require production of the other documents requested.