Broadsheet LLC v. Estate of Edgar Jerome James et al

Filing 9

ORDER. The 1 Petition and Application for Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Permitting Applicants to Issue Subpoenas for the Production of Documents from the Estate of Edgar Jerome "Jerry" James and Related Individuals is granted. Petitio ner is granted leave to issue the subpoenas annexed to the Petition as Attachments 1-5 [Docket Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5]. Petitioner shall issue the subpoenas within thirty days of entry of this order. In the absence of any motions or further activity, this case shall be closed sixty days after the entry of this order. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/18/11. (mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT
BROADSHEET LLC, an Isle of Man entity,
Petitioner,
To Issue Subpoenas For the Production of Documents.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Petition and Application for Order Under
28 U.S.C. § 1782 Permitting Applicants to Issue Subpoenas for the Production of
Documents from the Estate of Edgar Jerome “Jerry” James and Related Individuals
(the “Petition”) [Docket No. 1] filed by petitioner Broadsheet LLC.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner requests discovery “in connection with Broadsheet LLC v. The National
Accountability Bureau of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, an arbitration claim noticed
under the Rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London (to be held in Dublin),
by Broadsheet (IOM) against the Government of Pakistan.” Docket No. 3 at 5.
Petitioner also seeks discovery for another contemplated foreign arbitral claim against
the government of Pakistan. See id.
Petitioner’s arbitral claims against Pakistan arise out of a contract it entered into
with Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau on June 20, 2000. Pursuant to that
agreement, petitioner – an entity created by Mr. Jerome James and Dr. William F.
Pepper – was granted the exclusive right to recover assets misappropriated by

Pakistani government officials. Petitioner alleges that the Pakistani government failed
to assist petitioner, as required by their contract, and impermissibly entered into
settlements with individuals that deprived petitioner of fees for recovering lost assets.
Petitioner contends that the Estate of Edgar Jerome “Jerry” James,
Steeplechase Advisors LLC (a/k/a Steeplechase Financial Services LLC and
Steeplechase Capital LLC), Broadsheet LLC (Colorado), Sovereign Corporate & Fiscal
Services (Colorado) LLC, and Douglas M. Tisdale, Sr., Esq., “almost certainly have
within their possession custody or control documents containing evidence that would
prove [petitioner’s] efforts to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement with the
Government, and to disprove the Government’s proffered reasons for its numerous
breaches and purported termination.” Docket No. 3 at 6. Petitioner also contends that,
in May 2008, at a time when petitioner was dissolved, Mr. James apparently created
shell companies in Gibraltar and Colorado, including Broadsheet LLC (Colorado), to
settle all claims by petitioner against the Pakistani government.1 See Docket No. 3 at 6;
see id. at 6-7 (“[T]he Manx liquidator did not authorize this settlement at any time before
or after such dissolution.”). Petitioner avers that neither of its entity members “provided
Mr. James with powers of attorney to act on their behalf in May 2008, or at any time,
and if they had, the powers of attorney would have terminated when Broadsheet (IOM)
1

Petitioner avers that “the sham ‘Settlement Agreement’ was signed by Mr.
James as ‘Shareholder and beneficiary of Broadsheet LLC (under winding up),’ as
Manager of Steeplechase Financial Services LLC . . . , a Colorado company whose
date of incorporation and registered office were left conspicuously blank and which is
stated to have entered into the shoes of ‘Broadsheet LLC Gibraltar’ and through an
assignment received the claims of ‘Broadsheet LLC under winding up;’ and as
Chairman of ‘Broadsheet LLC,’ whose date and place of incorporation and location of
its registered office were left suspiciously blank.” Docket No. 3 at 14 n.10.
2

was dissolved on 2 April 2007.” Docket No. 3 at 15. Petitioner represents that it has
since been reinstated and is authorized by a court-appointed liquidator in the Isle of
Man to pursue its arbitral claims. See id. at 7 n.2.
In regard to the respondents other than Mr. James, plaintiff identifies what it
believes to be “strong indicia that the three corporate Respondents named —
Steeplechase, Broadsheet (Colorado), and Sovereign — are corporate alter ego or
‘shell’ entities over which Mr. James exercised complete control and dominion.” See
Docket No. 3 at 24. Furthermore, petitioner argues that Mr. Tisdale was its attorney
throughout its performance of the contract with the Pakistani government and requests
that he “release all of [petitioner’s] official corporate records.” Docket No. 3 at 25.
II. DISCUSSION
Section 1782(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides, in pertinent part,
that the “district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him
to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a
proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations
conducted before formal accusation.” The threshold statutory requirements of Section
1782(a) are met when “(1) the person from whom discovery is sought resides (or is
found) in the district of the district court to which the application is made, (2) the
discovery is for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, and (3) the application is
made by a foreign or international tribunal or any interested person.” Schmitz v.
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (ellipses and internal
quotation marks omitted). These threshold requirements have been met here.

3

Petitioner seeks the production of documents from the Estate of Edgar Jerome
“Jerry” James, Steeplechase Advisors LLC (a/k/a Steeplechase Financial Services LLC
and Steeplechase Capital LLC), Broadsheet LLC (Colorado), Sovereign Corporate &
Fiscal Services (Colorado) LLC, and Douglas M. Tisdale, Sr., Esq. Petitioner supplies
evidence indicating that all of these individuals and entities either reside or can be
found in Colorado. Petitioner has also provided a basis to conclude that the requested
documents are related to the contract entered into with the Pakistani government, its
work pursuant to that contract, and Mr. James’s attempt to settle petitioner’s claims with
the Pakistani government. Finally, as a party to that arbitration proceeding, petitioner is
undoubtedly an interested party.
Meeting the statutory prerequisites, however, is not the end of the inquiry. The
Court retains discretion over whether to permit the requested discovery. See Intel
Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 260 (2004). In the exercise of
that discretion, the Court notes that the people from whom and the entities from which
discovery is sought are not participants in the foreign proceeding. See id. at 264
(“[W]hen the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign
proceeding . . . the need for § 1782(a) aid generally is not as apparent as it ordinarily is
when evidence is sought from a nonparticipant in the matter arising abroad.”).
Moreover, petitioner points out that none of the entities are otherwise subject to the
jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and, therefore, the tribunal cannot “itself order
them to produce evidence.” Id.
The Court also “may take into account the nature of the foreign tribunal, the
character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign
4

government or the court . . . abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance.” See id.
At present, the Court cannot conclude that anything about the tribunals or the
proceedings raise concerns about granting petitioner’s request. Additionally, there is no
indication on the present record that petitioner’s request “conceals an attempt to
circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or
the United States.” Id. at 265.2
Finally, although the subpoenas request many categories of documents, the
Court does not find that on their face the requests are “unduly intrusive or
burdensome.” Id. To the extent the respondents disagree or seek modification of the
requirements, such can be the subject of appropriate motions. See In re Letter of
Request from Supreme Court, 138 F.R.D. 27, 32 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (“[S]uch ex parte
applications are typically justified by the fact that the parties will be given adequate
notice of any discovery taken pursuant to the request and will then have the opportunity
to move to quash the discovery or to participate in it.”); see also In re Letters Rogatory
from Tokyo Dist., 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir.1976). Indeed, “[i]nasmuch as relevant
evidence is presumptively discoverable under § 1782, the burden of demonstrating
offense to the foreign jurisdiction, or any other facts warranting the denial of a particular
application, should rest with the party opposing the application . . . .” In re Bayer AG,
2

Cf. In re Roz Trading Ltd., 2007 WL 120844, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2007)
(“The proceedings before the Centre appear to anticipate that the parties will produce
information relevant to the dispute. Although the Centre’s arbitral panels are not
compelled to accept information produced through discovery, if they choose to request
such information, it may only be obtainable through mechanisms such as § 1782(a).
Respondent’s claim that the arbitral panel might not be receptive to the aid of this Court
is purely speculative. Thus, it appears the Centre is fundamentally ‘receptive’ to such
aid for the purposes of this Intel criteria.”).
5

146 F.3d 188, 195-96 (3d Cir. 1998).3
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Petition and Application for Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Permitting Applicants to Issue Subpoenas for the Production of Documents from the
Estate of Edgar Jerome “Jerry” James and Related Individuals [Docket No. 1] is
GRANTED. Petitioner is granted leave to issue the subpoenas annexed to the Petition
as Attachments 1-5 [Docket Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5]. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner shall issue the subpoenas within thirty days of entry of
this order. In the absence of any motions or further activity, this case shall be closed
sixty days after the entry of this order.

DATED October 18, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3

Cf. Docket No. 8 (petitioner’s September 30, 2011 Affidavit of Service detailing
its efforts to provide notice of these proceedings to respondents).
6