Epstein Secrets

t of the Princes’ ac- tions. [22-24] Pursuant to the Second Cir- cuit’s instruction, the Court must first de- termine whe

exceptions to statutory foreign sovereign immunity and protecting a sovereign’s or sovereign’s agency’s legitimate claim to immunity from discovery.” First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998) (ordering full discovery against defendant over whom court al- ready had subje

very least, discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allega- tions of specific facts crucial to an immuni- ty determination.”)). The Second Circuit has instructed “that generally a plaintiff may be allowed limited discovery with re- spect to the jurisdictional issue; but until [plaintiff] has sho

ions to statutory, foreign sovereign immunity and protecting a sovereign's or sovereign's agency's legitimate claim to immunity from discovery.'" First City, Texas-Houston, N.A. a Rafulain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998) (ordering full discovery against defendant over whom court al- ready had sub

0 (hereinafter "Supp. Al-Wohai- bi Aff."). a. Status of the PIF In Filler v. Hanvit Bank, a case with facts very similar to those presented here, the Second Circuit reiterated Dole Food's requirement of direct ownership for instru- mentality status. Two defendants were commercial banks majority-owned by the Ko

CareCore Nat., LLC, Nos. 06 Civ. 7764 & 06 Civ. 13516, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.15, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also First City, Texas-Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 197 F.R.D. 250, 255 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (finding that attaching a subpoena to the door, and mailing another copy t

a subpoena to the door, and mailing another copy to counsel of record was sufficient). Cases not only from this Court, but also from others in the Second Circuit, have interpreted that rule "liberally" to allow service so long as the "the type of 7 EFTA00617957 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 160 Filed 05/

bia’s relationship to NCB. The Supreme Court and Second Circuit agree that there are certain circumstances in whi

Accordingly, the only dispute regarding SHC’s status is whether it is an organ of the Kingdom. In Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213 (2d Cir.2004), the Second Circuit considered various factors to determine whether an entity could be considered an organ of a foreign sovereign. Jd. at 217. The factors include: (1)

ally, discovery regarding NCB’s FSIA defense would necessarily subject the Kingdom to discovery, which the Court is hesitant to do unnecessarily. See First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998); see also Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (Sth Cir.1992)