Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd.

Background

Non-party Reed Smith LLP moved by letter for three forms of relief concerning the Court’s earlier order at Dkt. No. 341. Reed Smith sought clarification of the order requiring production of documents responsive to Levona Holdings Ltd.’s October 16, 2024 subpoena, permission to provide a categorical privilege log, and additional time to comply.

The court explained that the underlying cross-petition raises questions about whether Eletson’s principals and representatives committed fraud on the arbitrator by withholding evidence concerning Eletson’s exercise of a right to purchase Levona’s preferred interests in Eletson Gas. Levona had shown that documents it obtained might be only part of the relevant evidence supporting its claims that extraordinary circumstances delayed its filing and that fraud occurred in the arbitration. The court therefore had previously found that the subpoena requests were tailored to discovering evidence relevant to fraud in the arbitration and equitable tolling.

Rulings on Clarification and Scope

The court treated Reed Smith’s clarification request as a request for reconsideration and denied it. The court held that the earlier order required Reed Smith to produce all documents responsive to each subpoena request, rather than only a subset relating to the “Withheld Documents” or documents produced in bankruptcy proceedings.

The court also rejected Reed Smith’s request for a date cutoff. Reed Smith was required to produce responsive documents through October 16, 2024, the date Levona served the subpoena.

Reed Smith had not previously requested a protective order limiting production to documents related to its representation of Eletson Holdings and Eletson Corporation. The court considered that objection waived because objections to a subpoena generally must be served by the earlier of the compliance deadline or 14 days after service. The court also stated that the objection lacked merit because the subpoena defined Reed Smith’s clients to include the Eletson entities and other specified persons and entities, and Reed Smith’s knowledge of the alleged fraud and efforts to conceal it were at issue.

Privilege Log

The court denied permission to prepare a categorical privilege log. The earlier order required Reed Smith to serve a detailed, itemized privilege log identifying each withheld document and the reason for withholding it, with the information required by Local Civil Rule 26.2(a)(2).

Extension and Required Production

The court found good cause for a short extension but not for the full period Reed Smith requested. Reed Smith was required to produce all documents responsive to the subpoena and the detailed privilege log by June 3, 2025. It also had to begin rolling productions on May 20, 2025, with a detailed privilege log accompanying each production beginning on that date.

Disposition

The court denied Reed Smith’s request for clarification, denied its request to prepare a categorical privilege log, and granted a short extension of time subject to the stated production requirements.