Tag Archives: 1782

Case of the Day: Application of Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay

The case of the day is In re Application of the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Peter Nygård was the longtime owner of Nygård Cay in the Bahamas. Louis Bacon owned a neighboring parcel, Point House. The Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay had brought two actions in the Bahamas challenging the supposed failure of the Bahamian government to oversee Nygård’s expansion of Nygård Cay. Nygård sought to intervene in those actions. Bacon, who opposed Nygård’s work on his property, had separately sued several of Nygård’s associates for defamation, claiming they were part of a “smear campaign” against him. Nygård, taking a page perhaps from Steven Donziger, had a videographer, Stephen Feralio, who filmed “Nygård’s daily life, both personal and professional, including meetings between Nygård and Bahamian officials,” and who also allegedly “aided in the production of anti-Bacon videos.” The Coalition and Bacon, taking a page from Gibson Dunn, sought an order under § 1782 allowing a subpoena to Feralio to obtain the videos. Did I say taking a page from Gibson Dunn? I misspoke—Gibson Dunn is actually representing the Coalition and Bacon!
Continue reading

Case of the Day: In re Application of Owl Shipping

The case of the day is In re Application of Owl Shipping, LLC (D.N.J. 2014). Owl Shipping owns the M/V Owl, and Oriole Shipping, LLC owns the M/V Oriole. Owl Shipping chartered the Owl to Dalian International. It alleges that Dalian failed to pay and Owl had to terminate the charter party. Owl claims it is owed more than $1.5 million. Oriole asserted a similar claim against Dalian with respect to a charter of the Oriole. Both agreements called for arbitration in London under English law. Both Owl and Oriole demanded arbitration with the London Maritime Arbitrators Association.
Continue reading

Case of the Day: In re Application of Ryanair

The case of the day is In re Request for Subpoena by Ryanair Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2014). Ryanair had sued Joachim Kleinert in Dublin, alleging that he was liable for publishing a false report about its safety and maintenance record. Kleinert failed to appear, and the Irish court entered a default judgment. Ryanair then applied for leave under § 1782 to serve subpoenas on Google and Twitter; Kleinert apparently had a Gmail account and a Twitter account, so Ryanair believed the two companies might have information about his whereabouts for purposes of enforcing the Irish judgment.
Continue reading