Tag Archives: subpoena

Belfast Project: Chris Bray Says “I Told You So!”

Longtime contributor Chris Bray comments on the implications of the collapse of the Downey trial for the Belfast Project. Continue reading

Case of the Day: AQ Asset Management v. Levine

In the case of the day, AQ Asset Management LLC v. Levine (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014), a Swiss national who had sued US defendants in the New York state courts found that he could not avoid the reach of a New York subpoena in a related case brought by the same US parties. In 2008, Markus Schumacher, the Swiss national, sued the City of New York, Paul Ware Jr., William C. Clifford, Antiquorum USA, Inc., and Evan Zimmerman in the New York Supreme Court. Schumacher’s claims are not made clear in today’s decision: they “arose from an August 2007 incident that took place at the offices of Antiquorum USA, where Schumacher had served as the chief operating officer for plaintiff Antiquorum S.A.” Two of the defendants in the 2008 lawsuit, Antiquorum and Zimmerman then sued Michale Levine, Habsburg Holdings Ltd., and Osvaldo Patrizzi, also in New York. The second suit was related to the first, though the decision doesn’t explain exactly how.
Continue reading

Belfast Project: First Circuit Denies Government’s Petition for Panel Rehearing

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has denied the government’s petition for a panel rehearing in the Belfast Project case. As I noted in my post on the petition, the government was not seeking to change the outcome of the case. Rather, it objected to the panel’s reasoning to the extent the panel asserted that the courts had the power to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to a request under the mutual legal assistance treaty. I opined that the court was unlikely to grant the petition, and so it was, though there is no way to know the reasons for the denial.

The First Circuit had called for a response to the petition from Boston College, which indicates that the panel had at least some interest in the government’s arguments. Under FRAP 40(a)(3), no response to a petition is permitted unless the court asks for one. It was somewhat odd to require BC to respond to the petition, since BC did not, as far as I can tell, have a true stake in the outcome of the petition. But I suppose there was no one else to whom the court could look. In any event, I did not comment on BC’s response when it was filed, so in the interests of completeness I am posting it now.