In re Application of Sukhbaatar Batbold for an Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782

Filing 82

ORDER: By April 14, 2022, the parties are each directed to file a letter detailing whether: The discovery currently sought is "for use in" any of the remaining global litigations. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U. S. 241, 264 (2004); Batbold seeks different or narrower discovery from K2 in light of the dismissals; The extent to which K2's privilege argument in its request to file a Motion to Quash (ECF 59) is impacted by the revelation that K&S is no t and was never authorized to represent OPG in litigation against Batbold; and Batbold's anticipated future litigations satisfy the enumerated Intel factors in this § 1782 Petition. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 4/8/2022) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x
:
:
In re Application of Sukhbaatar Batbold for an :
Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct :
Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings
:
:
:
:
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------x

21-MC-218 (RA) (OTW)
ORDER

ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge:
The Court has reviewed K2’s request to file a Motion to Quash or for a Protective Order
(ECF 59), Batbold’s response (ECF 62), K2’s request for a pre-motion conference concerning
recent developments related to the application (ECF 78), and the parties’ joint status letter (ECF
81).
By April 14, 2022, the parties are each directed to file a letter detailing whether:
•

The discovery currently sought is “for use in” any of the remaining global litigations.
See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004);

•

Batbold seeks different or narrower discovery from K2 in light of the dismissals;

•

The extent to which K2’s privilege argument in its request to file a Motion to Quash
(ECF 59) is impacted by the revelation that K&S is not and was never authorized to
represent OPG in litigation against Batbold; and

1

•

Batbold’s anticipated future litigations satisfy the enumerated Intel factors in this
§ 1782 Petition.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Ona T. Wang
Ona T. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: April 8, 2022
New York, New York

2