Epstein Secrets

tates, 201 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir.2000)); see also Filetech S.A. v. France Telecom S.A., 157 F.3d 922, 932 ance v

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

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

court ... may refer to that evidence.'" Robinson, 269 F.3d at 140 (quoting Maka- rova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir2000)); see also Filetech S.A. v. France Telecom S.A, 157 F.3d 922, 932 ante v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 03 Civ. 8591(RCC). EFTA00795047 IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER

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

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)

y from legal proceedings in this country). Finally, Plaintiffs have not identified a factual dispute that would require jurisdictional discovery. See Filetech S.A. v. France Telecom S.A., 304 F.3d 180, 183 (2d Cir.2002) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court resolved jurisdictional issue without ho