In the Matter of Application of Blanca Games
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
What the Case Involved:
Our U.S. clients were served with subpoenas seeking sensitive commercial information by Maltese and Antiguan companies which had obtained under 28 U.S.C. §1782, an ex parte order from a United States District Court permitting discovery for use in “anticipated” foreign legal proceedings in Canada and the Republic of Singapore. Marks & Sokolov served objections to the subpoenas and moved to vacate the ex parte order, or in the alternative, quash the subpoenas. Marks & Sokolov argued Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(d) imposes “extraordinary obligations” of disclosure upon applicants seeking ex parte relief. Here, Marks & Sokolov demonstrated to the court that the Maltese and Antiguan’s ex parte application fatally failed to disclose numerous material facts, including:
- Illegality: Applicants were seeking discovery to recover proceeds from allegedly illegal internet poker and black-jack gambling, thus improperly seeking aid of U.S. Courts to their illegal conduct.
- Criminal Proceeding: One of the Applicants and its principals were indicted on criminal charges related to illegal internet gambling. One principal pled guilty, the other is a fugitive.
- Civil Forfeiture Proceeding: One Applicant was a defendants in civil forfeiture and money laundering proceedings in which it had agreed to forfeit all of their assets in an agreement signed with the United States before the §1782 Application was filed.
- Lack of Standing: Applicants lacked standing to bring the purported civil suits because they had forfeited all assets, including rights to any claims.
- Improper Purpose: Applicants likely sought discovery not to file civil litigation as required by §1782, but to obtain information for one of the Applicant’s fugitive principal could use to try and defend a criminal proceeding.
- Oppressiveness: Applicants falsely described the sought discovery as “narrowly tailored” when the document requests are oppressive..
Result:
After contentious oral argument, the Court vacated its order granting §1782 discovery and terminated Applicants’ motion to compel subpoena responses. Bruce S. Marks and Tom Sullivan served as lead trial counsel.In the Matter of Application of Blanca Games
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
What the Case Involved:
Our U.S. clients were served with subpoenas seeking sensitive commercial information by Maltese and Antiguan companies which had obtained under 28 U.S.C. §1782, an ex parte order from a United States District Court permitting discovery for use in “anticipated” foreign legal proceedings in Canada and the Republic of Singapore. Marks & Sokolov served objections to the subpoenas and moved to vacate the ex parte order, or in the alternative, quash the subpoenas. Marks & Sokolov argued Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(d) imposes “extraordinary obligations” of disclosure upon applicants seeking ex parte relief. Here, Marks & Sokolov demonstrated to the court that the Maltese and Antiguan’s ex parte application fatally failed to disclose numerous material facts, including:
- Illegality: Applicants were seeking discovery to recover proceeds from allegedly illegal internet poker and black-jack gambling, thus improperly seeking aid of U.S. Courts to their illegal conduct.
- Criminal Proceeding: One of the Applicants and its principals were indicted on criminal charges related to illegal internet gambling. One principal pled guilty, the other is a fugitive.
- Civil Forfeiture Proceeding: One Applicant was a defendants in civil forfeiture and money laundering proceedings in which it had agreed to forfeit all of their assets in an agreement signed with the United States before the §1782 Application was filed.
- Lack of Standing: Applicants lacked standing to bring the purported civil suits because they had forfeited all assets, including rights to any claims.
- Improper Purpose: Applicants likely sought discovery not to file civil litigation as required by §1782, but to obtain information for one of the Applicant’s fugitive principal could use to try and defend a criminal proceeding.
- Oppressiveness: Applicants falsely described the sought discovery as “narrowly tailored” when the document requests are oppressive..
Result:
After contentious oral argument, the Court vacated its order granting §1782 discovery and terminated Applicants’ motion to compel subpoena responses. Bruce S. Marks and Tom Sullivan served as lead trial counsel.