Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-09918
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Goldeneye Advisors v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Magistrate Judge Figueredo denied Goldeneye’s request for a non-party deposition before arbitration.
Goldeneye Advisors, LLC’s request for Pavel Romanovski’s deposition was denied for the present; the request remains affected by the pending motion to compel arbitration.
What happened
Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. concerns Goldeneye’s request to question non-party Pavel Romanovski in connection with an arbitration in Israel and related federal litigation. Goldeneye sought the deposition under an international evidence treaty.
The court said discovery to help prepare for arbitration is generally unavailable unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Goldeneye did not show that the information would be lost or that it would be unable to obtain Romanovski’s deposition later; defense counsel had represented that Romanovski would agree to a deposition in the near future.
The court denied Goldeneye’s letter motion at this time, pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. · No. 1:24-cv-09918
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 19, 2025
Background
Goldeneye Advisors, LLC filed a letter motion seeking discovery from non-party Pavel Romanovski under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. Goldeneye sought to take Romanovski’s deposition. The request related to an arbitration in Israel that, according to the complaint, stemmed from the same investment underlying Goldeneye’s claims in this action.
Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. and the other defendants opposed the request. The court held a conference about the discovery dispute on February 4, 2025. A separate motion to compel arbitration remained pending.
Legal standard
The court explained that discovery intended to assist an arbitration is generally not permitted unless “extraordinary circumstances” exist. That standard applies when denying immediate discovery would irreparably harm a party’s ability to present its case to the arbitrators. A showing that discovery would be convenient, rather than necessary, is not enough.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Goldeneye had not shown extraordinary circumstances. Goldeneye did not establish that the information sought from Romanovski would be lost if the deposition did not occur immediately. Although Goldeneye argued that it might never have another opportunity to seek discovery from Romanovski, it did not explain why that would happen.
The court also relied on defense counsel’s January 14, 2025 representation that Romanovski “would agree for [his] deposition to be taken in the near future.” The court said that representation undermined Goldeneye’s claim that it would be unable to obtain the deposition later. The court therefore found that the requested discovery was not necessary at that stage and distinguished a prior case cited by Goldeneye.
Disposition
The court denied Goldeneye’s letter motion seeking Romanovski’s non-party deposition at this time, pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 10. The order was signed by Valerie Figueredo, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.