IN RE: Ex Parte Application of Maria Claudia Beldi, Maria Ines Bveldi and Antonion Fabio Beldi to take discovery for use in a foreign proceeding under 28 USC 1782

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 Letter Motion for Discovery. The Court appreciates that framing the First Intervenors' motion to quash as an "opposition" to the application was inaccurate. Accordingly, the Court vacates the briefing schedule se t forth in its previous order (Dkt. 16), and orders the following: Not later than Thursday, December 12, 2024, the Applicants and the Second Intervenors must file an opposition to the motion to quash. The opposition to the motion to quash must not exceed 35 pages and the Court encourages the Applicants and the Second Intervenors to file a joint brief. Not later than Thursday, January 9, 2025, the First Intervenors must file a reply brief that may not exceed 20 pages. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 11/25/2024) (tg)

Case 1:24-mc-00421-VEC

Document 20

Filed 11/22/24

Page 1 of 4

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | washington, dc
1300 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3314 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

MEMO ENDORSED
November 22, 2024
VIA ECF

WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER’S EMAIL ADDRESS
[e-mail]

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 11/25/2024

Hon. Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Room 240
New York, NY 10007
Re:

In re Ex Parte Application of Maria Claudia Beldi,
Maria Ines Beldi and Antonio Fabio Beldi to Take Discovery
for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, Case No. 24-mc-00421 (VEC)

Dear Judge Caproni:
Antônio Roberto Beldi, Marco Antônio Beldi, Maria Theresa Beldi de Souza, Thais Barros
Beldi, and several companies that one or a combination of them control1 (collectively, “First
Intervenors”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully submit this letter motion to
clarify the briefing schedule in this case. Counsel for Intervenors has conferred with counsel for
Applicants and counsel for Second Intervenors (Maria Heloisa Beldi and Maria de Lourdes Beldi
de Alcantara). Applicants and Second Intervenors do not believe any clarification is necessary.
Their position is set forth more fully below.
Background: On September 10, 2024, Applicants filed an ex parte Section 1782
application, and the Court granted it on September 23, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 1, 5.) The Court set a
briefing schedule for the Section 1782 proceeding where motions to quash would be due by
November 6, 2024, responses by November 20, 2024, and replies by November 27, 2024. (Doc.
5.) On October 21, 2024, First Intervenors filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of moving
to quash and vacate the Court’s order granting the Section 1782 application. (Doc. No. 7.) The
1

Those entities are Agro Pecuária Beldi Ltda., Brookline Investments Ltd., Calas Participações Ltda.,
Credibel Corretora de Seguros S.A., Credibel Holding Financeira S.A., CSM Cartões de Segurança Ltda., Ficus
Empreendimentos Imobiliários Ltda., Morus Educacional Participações S.A., Morus Empreendimentos Imobiliários
Ltda., Santana Participações Ltda., Sapoti Empreendimentos Imobiliários S.A., Selte Serviços Elétricos Telefônicos
Ltda., Splice do Brasil - Telecomunicações e Eletrônica S.A., and Tolvi Participações S.A.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
ABU DHABI | ATLANTA | AUSTIN | BEIJING | BERLIN | BOSTON | BRUSSELS | CHICAGO | DALLAS | DOHA | HAMBURG | HONG KONG | HOUSTON | LONDON |
LOS ANGELES | MANNHEIM | MIAMI | MUNICH | NEUILLY-LA DEFENSE | NEW YORK | PARIS | PERTH | RIYADH | SALT LAKE CITY | SAN FRANCISCO |
SEATTLE | SHANGHAI | SILICON VALLEY | SINGAPORE | STUTTGART | SYDNEY | TOKYO | WASHINGTON, DC | WILMINGTON | ZURICH

Case 1:24-mc-00421-VEC

Document 20

Filed 11/22/24

Page 2 of 4

Court granted that motion, and First Intervenors filed their motion to quash and vacate on
November 6, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9, 10.)
On November 13, 2024, Second Intervenors filed a letter motion to intervene as parties to
this proceeding, to support the discovery being sought and obtain all documents and information
that are produced for their own use the Brazilian proceedings, and to oppose the pending motion
to vacate and quash. (Doc. No. 14.) On November 19, 2024, the Court granted that the motion to
intervene and set the following briefing schedule:
To avoid delay and to minimize duplicative arguments, Maria Heloisa
and Lourdes’s opening brief must not exceed 10 pages and must be
filed not later than Tuesday, December 3, 2024. The original
Intervenors must file a single opposition brief, not to exceed 30 pages,
in response to both the initial motion and Maria Heloisa and Lourdes's
brief not later than Tuesday, December 17, 2024. Replies must be
filed not later than Friday, December 27, 2024. The original
Applicants and Maria Heloisa and Lourdes are strongly encouraged to
file a joint reply, but if they cannot agree as to its content, they may file
separate replies, not to exceed 10 pages each.

(Doc. No. 16.)
Request for Clarification: First Intervenors respectfully request clarification on the
substance of what the Court expects the parties to file. In particular, First Intervenors are confused
by the Court’s order directing Second Intervenors (Maria Heloisa and Lourdes) to file an “opening
brief” of not more than 10 pages. The only motion on file is First Intervenors’ motion to quash,
which Applicants were originally scheduled to oppose on November 20, 2024, and which Second
Intervenors also wish to oppose.2 First Intervenors are likewise confused by the Court’s order
directing First Intervenors to file a single opposition brief. Again, the only motion on file is First
Intervenors’ motion to quash and vacate. Applicants have no pending brief on file. First
Intervenors respectfully request clarification on what the Court expects the parties to file to ensure
that First Intervenors do not inadvertently submit a brief that deviates from the Court’s
expectations.
Applicants’ and Second Intervenors’ Position. Applicants and Second Intervenors do
not believe that clarification is necessary, as the Court’s order is clear, and counsel for the parties
confirmed with Chambers that the briefing schedule set out in Doc. 16 supplants the previous
briefing schedule set out in Doc. 5.
First Intervenors’ Concerns: First Intervenors are concerned that the briefing schedule
in the Court’s November 19 order could have several potentially unintended consequences,
depending on how it is interpreted. If it is interpreted such that (a) the “opening brief” is Second
2

To be sure, First Intervenors are not arguing that Applicants missed a deadline or otherwise failed to file a
timely opposition to First Intervenors’ motion to vacate and quash. Counsel for all parties were informed by chambers
that no brief was due on November 20, 2024.

2

Case 1:24-mc-00421-VEC

Document 20

Filed 11/22/24

Page 3 of 4

Intervenors’ opportunity to argue in support of the Section 1782 application, and (b) the
“opposition brief” is First Intervenors’ only opposition to both that “opening brief” and Applicants’
Section 1782 application, then (c) the Court’s November 19 order would treat First Intervenors’
pending motion to vacate and quash as though it had never been filed.
Second, such an interpretation would deprive First Intervenors of any ability to reply. This
latter consequence is particularly concerning because the bulk of Applicants’ and Second
Intervenors’ additional briefing would be after First Intervenors file their “opposition brief”—a
brief that will likely contain many of the same arguments contained in First Intervenors’ current
motion to vacate and quash.
Third, and finally, such an interpretation would result in First Intervenors having five fewer
pages of briefing, despite now being adverse to additional parties who are able to file additional
rounds of briefing. (Originally, First Intervenors would have 25 pages for their motion to vacate
and quash and 10 pages for their reply in support of that motion.)3
If the interpretation set out above is the Court’s intent, First Intervenors will of course
comply. First Intervenors simply seek clarification on the issue. In addition, if the above
interpretation is correct, First Intervenors respectfully request that Applicants and Second
Intervenors be strictly limited to the arguments set forth in the Section 1782 application and in the
“opening brief,” since they would have the benefit of seeing the bulk of First Intervenors’ likely
arguments before they file.
*

*

*

First Intervenors therefore respectfully request clarification on the substance of what the
Court expects the parties to file to ensure that First Intervenors do not inadvertently submit
anything that deviates from the Court’s expectations.
Should the Court confirm that briefing will follow the sequence set out in Doc. 16, the
parties jointly request that the Court reset the deadlines as set out below, so that briefing may be
complete by December 20, 2024:
?

Opening brief for Second Intervenors: not later than Tuesday,
November 26, 2024 (not exceeding 10 pages).

?

Single opposition brief for First Intervenors: not later than
Tuesday, December 12, 2024 (not exceeding 35 pages).

3

Counsel for Applicants and Second Intervenors have both indicated that their respective clients are not
opposed to First Intervenors getting an additional five pages (i.e. up to 35 pages total) for their “opposition brief” to
be filed on December 17, 2024 under the Court’s November 19 schedule.

3

Case 1:24-mc-00421-VEC

?

Document 20

Filed 11/22/24

Page 4 of 4

Replies: not later than Friday, December 20, 2024 (10 pages
for Applicants and 10 pages for Second Intervenors, or 20
pages for joint brief)

Very truly yours,

John (“Fritz”) Scanlon
cc:

All Counsel of Record (Via ECF)

The Court appreciates that framing the First Intervenors' motion to quash as an "opposition" to
the application was inaccurate. Accordingly, the Court vacates the briefing schedule set forth in
its previous order (Dkt. 16), and orders the following:
Not later than Thursday, December 12, 2024, the Applicants and the Second Intervenors must
file an opposition to the motion to quash. The opposition to the motion to quash must not
exceed 35 pages and the Court encourages the Applicants and the Second Intervenors to file a
joint brief. Not later than Thursday, January 9, 2025, the First Intervenors must file a reply
brief that may not exceed 20 pages.
SO ORDERED.
11/25/2024
HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4