Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-07331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Eletson Holdings v. Levona Holdings, Judge Liman struck Intervenors’ letter for exceeding three pages and allowed a compliant replacement.
The Intervenors, the Petitioner, the Respondent, and their counsel were affected. The Intervenors’ letter was struck, the Intervenors could submit a revised letter-motion, and the Petitioner and Respondent could respond.
What happened
In Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., the Intervenors submitted a letter asking to change the case’s discovery schedule. The letter concerned discovery about equitable tolling and whether an arbitration award was obtained through fraud.
The Intervenors argued that more time was needed because discovery from the parties and people in several countries remained incomplete, and several discovery disputes were still pending. They proposed completing discovery around August 31, subject to possible delays outside their control.
Judge Liman struck the letter because it violated his court practices limiting letter submissions to three pages. He allowed the Intervenors to submit a revised letter-motion by the end of May 13, 2025, and gave the Respondent and Petitioner until May 15 to respond.
The detailed version
- Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-07331
- Lewis Liman
- May 13, 2025
What the court addressed
The court addressed a letter from the Intervenors at docket entry 344. The court’s order states that the letter violated the court’s Individual Practices, which limit letter submissions to three pages.
The Intervenors’ request
The Preferred Shareholders, identified in the letter as Intervenors, asked the court to modify the existing case-management plan, particularly the discovery schedule. They said the court had allowed discovery concerning facts relevant to equitable tolling and whether the arbitration award was procured by fraud.
The Preferred Shareholders argued that meaningful discovery from Levona Holdings Ltd., affiliated entities and individuals, and various nonparties was necessary. They pointed to outstanding party discovery, six pending discovery motions, and international nonparty discovery involving at least 28 nonparties in six countries. They also argued that the existing schedule did not adequately account for those matters, possible international delays, and other logistical issues.
The letter proposed that discovery could possibly be completed in roughly 100 days, by August 31, if the parties cooperated and acted diligently. It also asked for adjustments if delays under the Hague Convention were outside the Intervenors’ control.
The court’s ruling
Judge Liman struck the letter on his own initiative because it exceeded the three-page limit. The court advised counsel to review its Individual Practices and also advised counsel to review the professional-conduct rule concerning language appropriate for attorneys appearing before the court.
The court did not decide the Intervenors’ requested discovery-schedule modification in this order. It allowed the Intervenors to submit a revised, compliant letter-motion by the close of business on May 13, 2025. The Respondent and Petitioner were given until May 15, 2025, to respond.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.