In the matter of the application of Isabella Hranov for an order to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782

Filing 36

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION: granting 29 Motion for Reconsideration re 29 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 26 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Isabella Hranov. In a filing captioned as a Motion for Reconsideration, applicant Isabella Hranov r equests that the Court re-open this proceeding so that she can serve a subpoena on Deutsche Bank Trust Company ("DBTC") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (Docket # 29.) Hranov's initial application, which was brought ex parte, sought discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding from either Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche Bank"), or, alternatively, DBTC. The Court granted Hranov's motion and has not thereafter restricted her from serving a subpoena on DBTC. The Court will d irect the Clerk to re-open this case for the purpose of terminating Hranov's motion. And as set forth herein. The Clerk is directed to re-open this case for the purpose of terminating the motion. (Docket # 29.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 11/29/2022) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
ISABELLA HRANOV FOR AN ORDER TO
TAKE DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1782
-----------------------------------------------------------x

21-mc-751 (PKC)
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

CASTEL, U.S.D.J.
In a filing captioned as a Motion for Reconsideration, applicant Isabella Hranov
requests that the Court re-open this proceeding so that she can serve a subpoena on Deutsche
Bank Trust Company (“DBTC”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (Docket # 29.) Hranov’s initial
application, which was brought ex parte, sought discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding from
either Deutsche Bank AG (“Deutsche Bank”), or, alternatively, DBTC. The Court granted
Hranov’s motion and has not thereafter restricted her from serving a subpoena on DBTC. The
Court will direct the Clerk to re-open this case for the purpose of terminating Hranov’s motion.
Hranov’s initial application sought discovery from DBTC as an alternative to
obtaining discovery from Deutsche Bank. See Docket #1 (ex parte notice of motion “for an
order permitting [Hranov] to obtain discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from the following
persons found in this district: (1) Deutsche Bank AG or, alternatively, (2) Deutsche Bank Trust
Corporation.”) (emphasis added); Docket # 4 at 6 (“Hranov requests that the Court authorize the
issuance of a subpoena to DB or, if for jurisdictional reasons DB cannot be served in New York,
then DBTC.”). In granting Hranov’s initial, ex parte application, the Court observed: “Applicant
does not seek to issue a subpoena to both entities. Applicant appears to be at sea as to the proper
party to serve but that is Applicant’s responsibility to determine and not the Court’s, especially in
the ex parte context.” (Id. at 1 n.1.)

Hranov subsequently served a subpoena on Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank
appeared and filed a motion to quash, which the Court granted. See Matter of Hranov, 2022 WL
1261827 (S.D.N.Y Apr. 28, 2022). The Court’s Opinion and Order (the “Opinion”) concluded
that Hranov failed to demonstrate that Deutsche Bank is “found” in this District, as required by
section 1782(a). See id. The Opinion also concluded that if Hranov had demonstrated that
Deutsche Bank is “found” in this District, the application would be denied under the first and
fourth discretionary factors of Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 26465 (2004).
The Opinion referenced DBTC once in passing and did not purport to adjudicate
any issue related to DBTC. In her current motion, Hranov asserts that in contrast to Deutsche
Bank, DBTC is subject to general personal jurisdiction in this District and thus satisfies the
mandatory factors of section 1782(a). She also asserts that the first discretionary Intel factor is
not an impediment to a subpoena of DBTC because DBTC is not a party to the underlying
litigation, and that the breadth of her request satisfies the fourth Intel factor. 1
Hranov herself styled the initial application as a choice between serving a Rule 45
subpoena on Deutsche Bank or DBTC. This Court has not prevented Hranov from seeking
discovery from DBTC. In the event that Hranov serves a subpoena upon DBTC, it is free to
appear in this case and make whatever application to the Court that it deems appropriate.
Deutsche Bank opposes this motion, arguing that Hranov is not entitled to “an
automatic backup subpoena,” and characterizes the present motion as “perverse and

As to the fourth Intel factor, Hranov correctly observes that the Second Circuit has stated that “to the extent a
district court finds that a discovery request is overbroad, before denying the application it should ordinarily consider
whether that defect could be cured through a limited grant of discovery.” Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291, 302 (2d Cir.
2015). That guidance should not be mistaken as a license for an applicant to strategically propose sweeping
document demands with the expectation that the Court will be responsible for crafting a more focused alternative on
the applicant’s behalf.
1

-2-

presumptuous.” (Opp. Mem. at 3.) However, service of a subpoena to DBTC would not result
in any unfair prejudice to Deutsche Bank, which successfully moved to quash her subpoena.
The Court has considered the other arguments raised by Hranov. It adheres to the
Opinion’s reasoning as to the application of In re Del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019).
Hranov separately points out that her application to Deutsche Bank sought documents for a
period of 2006 through present, and that the Opinion incorrectly stated that the application
included no date limitations. In light of the Opinion’s conclusion that the application to
Deutsche Bank did not satisfy the mandatory factors of section 1782(a), the misstatement about
the date limitations of Hranov’s document requests does not warrant reconsideration of the
Opinion.
The Clerk is directed to re-open this case for the purpose of terminating the
motion. (Docket # 29.)
SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
November 29, 2022

-3-