Glasstech,Inc. v. Freund
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-06004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Glasstech v. Freund, Judge Ricardo partly granted and partly denied Glasstech’s sanctions motion against Green for discovery violations.
Green is subject to the discovery sanctions, the restriction on sworn jurisdictional statements, the finding concerning authorization of the transfers, and the fee-and-cost obligation. Glasstech and Freund may seek their reasonable deposition-related and sanctions-motion fees and costs. The order does not decide whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Green.
What happened
Glasstech, Inc. v. Freund concerns Glasstech’s effort to determine whether Green was connected to transfers of Glasstech shares to New York. Glasstech asked the court to penalize Green for not completing his deposition and not obtaining required bank records. Green said health problems justified his absence and that he could not produce documents he did not have.
The court found that Green violated orders requiring him to attend the deposition and seek documents from Swiss banks. It rejected his health-related justification because the medical letters he submitted were unsworn, unsupported by medical records, and conclusory. The court also found that Green’s requests to the banks did not seek all required records and that he did not produce documents or confirm that none were within his control.
Judge Ricardo granted in part and denied in part Glasstech’s sanctions motion. The court did not shift the burden of proving personal jurisdiction to Green, but barred Green and his representatives from submitting sworn statements supporting his jurisdictional dismissal motion, treated Green as having known about and authorized the relevant transfers, and ordered Green to pay Glasstech’s and Freund’s reasonable deposition and sanctions-motion fees and costs, with the amount to be decided later.
The detailed version
- Glasstech,Inc. v. Freund · No. 1:23-cv-06004
- Paul Gardephe
- July 8, 2025
Background
Glasstech brought this action concerning ownership and possible transfer of certain Glasstech shares purchased by Michael Freund. Glasstech sought a declaration that a transfer of the shares would violate its stockholders agreement. Pincus Green, whom the opinion identifies as Freund’s former father-in-law, asserted that the shares belonged to an Israeli trust. Green had indicated that he intended to seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The court ordered jurisdiction-related discovery. Green appeared for part of a remote deposition in July 2024, but his counsel ended it after Green became light-headed. The court later denied Green’s request for a protective order excusing further deposition testimony and ordered the parties to arrange a continuation with appropriate accommodations. The parties agreed to deposition sessions on November 4, 5, and 6, 2024. Green did not attend any of those sessions, and his counsel later stated that Green would not appear to complete the deposition.
The court also ordered Green to obtain and produce documents concerning powers of attorney, authorized signatories, and transfers from his Swiss bank accounts to Freund. Green sent requests to the banks for some account information, but did not request wire-transfer records, did not produce documents obtained from the banks, and did not affirm that no additional responsive documents were within his control.
Sanctions motion
Glasstech moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. It requested, among other things, that the court shift the burden of proof on personal jurisdiction to Green, prevent Green or his representatives from submitting sworn statements supporting a jurisdictional dismissal motion, treat as true Glasstech’s allegations that Green controlled the accounts and authorized the transfers, and award reasonable fees and costs.
Green argued that his failure to attend was caused by a medical condition, that he had produced every responsive document in his possession or control, and that he had not been warned that sanctions could result from noncompliance.
Court’s analysis
The court held that sanctions were warranted for Green’s failure to attend the November deposition. The court found that Green literally failed to appear in violation of a court order and that his conduct supported a finding of willfulness. It rejected Green’s substantial-justification argument because the medical letters were unsworn, unsupported by medical records, and conclusory. The court also found that Green had not shown that attending a remote deposition in two-hour sessions from his home was medically dangerous.
The court separately held that sanctions were warranted for Green’s failure to comply with the document-production orders. Green’s requests to the Swiss banks did not seek wire-transfer records, and he did not produce responsive documents or affirm that none existed within his control. The court found that this conduct delayed the case and violated the September 18 and October 18 orders.
The court stated that the sanctions order did not decide the merits of Green’s anticipated personal-jurisdiction motion. It addressed whether Green’s conduct deprived Glasstech of a fair opportunity to test his statements through discovery.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Glasstech’s motion. It denied the request to shift the burden of proof to Green, finding that remedy too broad and not narrowly tailored to the prejudice caused by the discovery failures.
The court barred Green from submitting any sworn declaration or affidavit by himself or his representatives in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court also deemed Green to have known about and authorized transfers from his Swiss bank accounts used to purchase the shares. This prevented Green from arguing in support of dismissal that he was unaware of or had not authorized those transfers.
Finally, the court ordered Green—not his counsel—to pay Glasstech’s and Freund’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for preparing for the cancelled deposition sessions and preparing the sanctions motion. The amount was left for determination on a separate fee motion. The court made no finding that Green’s counsel engaged in sanctionable conduct.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.