US District Court for Southern District of New York considers motion to quash subpoena | Practical Law

US District Court for Southern District of New York considers motion to quash subpoena | Practical Law

In In re Republic of Kazakhstan for an Order Directing Discovery from Clyde & Co. LLP Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, 110 F. Supp. 3d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), the US District Court for the Southern District of New York considered a motion to quash a subpoena.

US District Court for Southern District of New York considers motion to quash subpoena

by Practical Law Arbitration
Published on 01 Jul 2015 • USA (National/Federal)
In In re Republic of Kazakhstan for an Order Directing Discovery from Clyde & Co. LLP Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, 110 F. Supp. 3d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), the US District Court for the Southern District of New York considered a motion to quash a subpoena.
In In re Republic of Kazakhstan for an Order Directing Discovery from Clyde & Co. LLP Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, 110 F. Supp. 3d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), the US District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a motion to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1782, which permits the taking of evidence in the US for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.
An arbitral tribunal in Sweden awarded a Moldovan company, Ascom SA, and its principals, Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, US$199 million from the Kazakhstan government, finding that the government illegally seized a liquefied petroleum gas plant. In connection with set-aside proceedings pending in the Svea Court of Appeal, and pursuant to section 1782, the Kazakhstan government issued a subpoena to the New York office of the U.K. based law firm Clyde & Co, counsel to the Stati Group, to produce evidence adduced during commercial arbitrations concerning the value of the seized oil and gas plant.
In denying the motion to quash the subpoena, the court considered:
  • The prejudice to a foreign government that would result from quashing the subpoena.
  • The possibility that the requested documents could reveal that the arbitral award was contrary to Swedish public policy.
  • The absence of authoritative proof that the Svea Court of Appeal would reject this evidence.
Case: In re Republic of Kazakhstan for an Order Directing Discovery from Clyde & Co. LLP Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, 110 F. Supp. 3d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).