Eastman Kodak Company v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al

Filing 146

ORDER with respect to (1212) Letter Motion for Discovery in case 1:13-md-02481-PAE; with respect to (143) Letter Motion for Discovery in case 1:14-cv-06849-PAE: The Court cannot, on these submissions, reliably determine its jurisdiction over the & #167; 1782(a) petition. The Court accordingly directs Kodak to submit a supplemental letter of no more than 4 pages that: (1) lists the specific persons (or corporate entities) from whom it seeks discovery pursuant to § 1782; (2) sets forth the bases for jurisdiction against each person from whom discovery is sought under del Valle Ruiz; and (3) addresses whether the Court's jurisdiction is impacted by the fact of its presiding over this MDL, see 28 U.S.C. § 1407(b) (allowing dist rict judge overseeing MDL to "exercise the powers of a district judge in any district" for pretrial proceedings), and/or the fact of defendants' participation therein. Kodak's letter is due Friday, January 24, 2020. Defendants ma y submit a response, also of no more than 4 pages, to the narrow issues presented in Kodaks supplemental letter by Tuesday, January 28, 2020. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/21/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:13-md-02481-PAE, 1:14-cv-06849-PAE (jwh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE ALUMINUM WAREHOUSING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

13-md-2481 (PAE)
and all related cases
ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
The Court has received plaintiff Eastman Kodak Company’s letter motion, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), “for an order permitting Kodak to use the discovery materials produced by
Defendants in this action to prosecute its parallel action against Defendants in the United
Kingdom,” Dkt. 1212, as well as defendants’ response, Dkt. 1214.
As a threshold matter, a district court possesses jurisdiction to grant a § 1782 petition if:
(1) “the person from whom discovery is sought reside[s] (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.” Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 895 F.3d 238, 243
(2d Cir. 2018).
Of these statutory requirements, only the first is at issue here. In October 2019, the
Second Circuit clarified “that § 1782’s ‘resides or is found’ language extends to the limits of
personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.” In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520, 528
(2d Cir. 2019); see id. at 523 (evaluating § 1782 request from foreign parent company separately
from its U.S. affiliate). Resolving this factor, when in dispute, thus appears to require the Court

to analyze whether it has personal jurisdiction, as described in del Valle Ruiz, over each of the
persons from whom discovery is sought.
The parties’ submissions do not make sufficiently clear the identity of the persons from
whom discovery is sought, and thus do not provide sufficient basis for the Court to determine its
jurisdiction. Kodak seeks to use all “the discovery materials produced by Defendants in this
action,” but does not specify whether it refers to the defendants in its individual case, all of the
defendants in this multi-district litigation, or some other combination of current and/or past
defendants. Citing pre-del Valle Ruiz authority, defendants, in turn, argue that most or all
defendants remaining in Kodak’s particular case do not “have their corporate offices and
principal place of business” in the Southern District of New York. Dkt. 1214 at 3–4 (citation
omitted).
The Court cannot, on these submissions, reliably determine its jurisdiction over the
§ 1782(a) petition. The Court accordingly directs Kodak to submit a supplemental letter of no
more than 4 pages that: (1) lists the specific persons (or corporate entities) from whom it seeks
discovery pursuant to § 1782; (2) sets forth the bases for jurisdiction against each person from
whom discovery is sought under del Valle Ruiz; and (3) addresses whether the Court’s
jurisdiction is impacted by the fact of its presiding over this MDL, see 28 U.S.C. § 1407(b)
(allowing district judge overseeing MDL to “exercise the powers of a district judge in any
district” for pretrial proceedings), and/or the fact of defendants’ participation therein. Kodak’s
letter is due Friday, January 24, 2020. Defendants may submit a response, also of no more than
4 pages, to the narrow issues presented in Kodak’s supplemental letter by Tuesday, January 28,
2020.

2

SO ORDERED.

PaJA.�

____________________________
Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge
Dated: January 21, 2020
New York, New York

3