-
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,……
-
Case of the Day: Cascade Yarns v. Knitting Fever
The case of the day is Cascade Yarns, Inc. v. Knitting Fever, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2014). The claim in the case was for mislabeling of Knitting Fever’s yarns as to country of origin. Cascade wanted to take document discovery and depositions of the distributors of the accused yarn in Italy and Spain. Both Italy and……
-
Case of the Day: Eikenberry v. Celsteel Ltd.
The case of the day is Eikenberry v. Celesteel Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Eikenberry sued Celsteel Ltd. and Samuel Chand Chib. The claim was that Ralph Esmerian and R. Esmerian Inc. gave Eikenberry a security interest in an emerald necklace, but that Esmerian then transferred the necklace to Chib to extinguish a debt to Celesteel. The……
-
Deposing Third Party Witnesses in Germany: The Same, but Different
Peter Bert follows up on his post from last week about the practice under the Hague Evidence Convention in Germany. For American lawyers, it’s obviously important to understand what will happen once your letter of request makes its way to Germany. But it’s also important to bear in mind how the US court will treat……
-
Pre-Trial Discovery under the Hague Evidence Convention: Is Germany’s Position Softening?
Peter Bert is back with a report of an interesting development—or hint of a development—in how the German courts think about requests for the production of documents. This is cross-posted at Peter’s blog. A recent Frankfurt case raises this issue: Germany has declared “that it will not execute Letters of Request issued for the purpose……