In Re Application of Top Matrix Holdings Ltd for an Order to take Discovery for use in a Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782

Filing 51

ORDER granting 50 Letter Motion for Discovery; granting 50 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Accordingly, the petition of Top Matrix Holdings Ltd., Doc. 1, as modified by the Court's December 2 Opinion & Order and by Exhibit A of the p arties' letter is GRANTED. See Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291, 302 (2d Cir. 2015) ("[I]t is far preferable for a district court to reconcile whatever misgivings it may have about the impact of its participation in the foreign litigation by is suing a closely tailored discovery order rather than by simply denying relief outright. (internal quotation marks and citation removed)). The Clerk of Court is directed to adjourn the conference scheduled for December 19, 2019, terminate the motion, Doc. 50, and close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 12/17/2019) (kv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE APPLICATION OF TOP MATRIX
HOLDINGS LTD. FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE
DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782

ORDER
18 Misc. 465 (ER)

RAMOS, D.J.:
�e Court is in receipt of the parties’ letter motion of December 16, 2019
petitioning the Court to approve and authorize discovery as outlined in Exhibit A of their
letter. Doc. 50. �e parties jointly drafted the discovery proposal in accordance with this
Court’s Opinion & Order of December 2, 2019, which granted the petitioner’s request for
discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in part, denied it in part, and directed the parties
to narrow the scope of discovery before final approval by this Court. Doc. 48.
�e Court has reviewed the discovery proposal and finds that it is not “unduly
intrusive or burdensome” under the fourth factor articulated in Intel Corp. v. Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 265 (2004). Accordingly, the petition of Top Matrix
Holdings Ltd., Doc. 1, as modified by the Court’s December 2 Opinion & Order and by
Exhibit A of the parties’ letter is GRANTED. See Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291, 302 (2d
Cir. 2015) (“[I]t is far preferable for a district court to reconcile whatever misgivings it
may have about the impact of its participation in the foreign litigation by issuing a closely
tailored discovery order rather than by simply denying relief outright.” (internal quotation
marks and citation removed)). �e Clerk of Court is directed to adjourn the conference
scheduled for December 19, 2019, terminate the motion, Doc. 50, and close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 17, 2019
New York, New York
EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.