Archives

Case of the Day: In re Application Pursuant to § 1782

The case of the day is In re Application Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (S.D. Ohio 2014). Sebastian Stygar was one of the shareholders and managing directors of several companies called the Lingaro entities. He claimed he had been wrongfully frozen out of the business, and he sought discovery from his two fellow principals, Slawomir Kaczor and Tomasz Rogucki, for use in litigation concerning the dispute in Poland. The facts of the dispute aren’t otherwise important. The key question is where Kaczor and Rogucki could be found. Under § 1782, you can obtain an order for discovery from someone who “resides or is found” in the relevant judicial district. Here, Stygar’s claim was that Kaczor and Rogucki were “found” in the Southern District of Ohio because they occasionally traveled to Cincinnati for work.
Continue reading Case of the Day: In re Application Pursuant to § 1782

Case of the Day: Midmark Corp. v. Janak Healthcare

The case of the day is Midmark Corp. v. Janak Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (S.D. Ohio 2014). Janak was an Indian firm in which several members of the Mehta family, including Apurva J. Mehta, were shareholders. Midmark and the defendants (Janak and the Mehtas) entered into a share purchase agreement. A dispute arose, and Midmark sought a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo while it moved to compel arbitration.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Midmark Corp. v. Janak Healthcare

Case of the Day: Midmark v. Jamak Healthcare

The case of the day is Midmark Corp. v. Janak Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (S.D. Ohio 2014). It’s a very poorly done decision, and it badly mangles FRCP 4(f)(3) and various provisions of the Hague Service Convention. The only redeeming feature of the case is its result: the court denied a motion for leave to serve process by email in India. This is the correct decision because of India’s Article 10(a) objection.

I am not going to catalog the decision’s faults. But the judge denied the motion without prejudice. If the plaintiff renews the motion and we get another decision along the same lines, I’ll give a full analysis. Note to readers and law clerks: do not cite this decision or pay attention to its very odd and wrongheaded discussion of the Convention.