Archive: June 4, 2009

1
Finding Defendants’ Behavior “a Textbook Case of Discovery Abuse,” Court Orders $1,022,700 in Monetary Sanctions
2
Court Declines to Compel Production of Documents from Foreign Jurisdiction upon Finding a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and where Certain Documents are Protected from Production by Israeli Law

Finding Defendants’ Behavior “a Textbook Case of Discovery Abuse,” Court Orders $1,022,700 in Monetary Sanctions

Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2009 WL 1473708 (N.D. Ga. May 27, 2009)

In this constructive transfer and fraud case arising out of the 2003 bankruptcy of Magnatrax Corporation, plaintiff alleged numerous discovery abuses on the part of defendants and sought sanctions accordingly.  Among the abuses described were several allegations related to defendants’ failure to produce information stored on backup tapes, even upon being ordered to do so, and other various and related misdeeds.  Calling defendants actions a “textbook case of discovery abuse,” the court found in favor of plaintiff but declined to strike defendants’ answer, as requested, and ordered defendants to pay plaintiff $1,022,700 in monetary sanctions.

Read More

Court Declines to Compel Production of Documents from Foreign Jurisdiction upon Finding a Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and where Certain Documents are Protected from Production by Israeli Law

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.

Read More

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.