<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: In re Mak	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/06/11/case-of-the-day-in-re-mak/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/06/11/case-of-the-day-in-re-mak/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:23:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted Folkman		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/06/11/case-of-the-day-in-re-mak/#comment-659</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 02:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=8034#comment-659</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Update: Grover sought to quash the subpoena. Grover argued that the procedural rules that governed the Hong Kong proceedings would not have allowed Mak to take his deposition, but this of course is irrelevant, as there is no discoverability requirement under &#167; 1782. The most interesting basis for the motion was Grover&#039;s assertion that if he were to testify in the Hong Kong case, his testimony would be private (I think he means that the testimony would be kept under seal). The judge found that the Hong Kong court could make whatever rulings it thought appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the testimony. So the judge &lt;a href=&quot;http://lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Mak-2.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow ugc&quot;&gt;rejected the motion&lt;/a&gt;.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Update: Grover sought to quash the subpoena. Grover argued that the procedural rules that governed the Hong Kong proceedings would not have allowed Mak to take his deposition, but this of course is irrelevant, as there is no discoverability requirement under &sect; 1782. The most interesting basis for the motion was Grover&#8217;s assertion that if he were to testify in the Hong Kong case, his testimony would be private (I think he means that the testimony would be kept under seal). The judge found that the Hong Kong court could make whatever rulings it thought appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the testimony. So the judge <a href="http://lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Mak-2.pdf" rel="nofollow ugc">rejected the motion</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
