Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd.

Background

Intervenors Apargo Limited, Fentalon Limited, and Desimusco Trading Limited moved for reconsideration of the Court’s July 16, 2025 order. That earlier order required Intervenor witnesses Vassilis Kertsikoff, Laskarina Karastamati, and Vasilis Hadjieleftheriadis to appear for depositions in New York on July 25, July 29, and July 30, 2025. The Intervenors also sought a protective order preventing Eletson Holdings Inc., Levona Holdings Ltd., or affiliated persons or entities from serving warrants or other legal papers on the witnesses while they traveled to or were present in the United States for their depositions.

Levona Holdings Ltd., Eletson Holdings Inc., and Eletson Corporation opposed both motions.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court treated the request to change the deposition dates and location as a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an exceptional request to revisit an earlier order and generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious injustice.

The court held that the Intervenors did not meet that standard. When opposing the earlier motion to compel, they had already argued that travel from Greece created burdens and complications. They had not then identified the particular scheduling problems later asserted by Karastamati and Hadjieleftheriadis. The court also found that the witnesses had no reason to assume that the depositions would occur somewhere other than the New York location stated in the deposition notices. Neither witness identified evidence about travel ability that was unavailable when the earlier motion was decided. The court further stated that the witnesses’ declarations were improperly submitted without permission to file affidavits in connection with reconsideration.

The court added that, even if the Intervenors were allowed to present the issue again, the result would not change. Both Karastamati and Hadjieleftheriadis had previously traveled to New York for JAMS arbitration hearings, and the court found no persuasive reason they could not rearrange their schedules to attend one-day depositions there. The motion to change the deposition dates and location was therefore denied.

Protective-Order Request

The Intervenors sought a protective order providing broad protection against service of process—formal delivery of legal papers—in other proceedings while the witnesses were traveling to or present in New York. The opinion notes that Karastamati and Hadjieleftheriadis had been subject to sanctions orders from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

The court discussed the general rule that people who come from another jurisdiction to attend court proceedings may, in some circumstances, be protected from service of civil process while attending and for a reasonable time while traveling. The court explained that the rule is intended to prevent interference with court proceedings and to avoid discouraging needed witnesses from appearing. Its application depends on the circumstances, including the person’s role, whether the appearance is voluntary, and the relationship between the proceeding in which the person appears and the proceeding in which service might occur.

The court questioned whether that protection would apply here. Each witness had formerly served on the board of Eletson Holdings, which was a debtor in a related bankruptcy proceeding, and the witnesses were subject to bankruptcy-court orders because of their past or then-current roles involving Holdings. The court stated that blanket immunity might obstruct the interests of justice.

The court did not decide whether the witnesses were entitled to immunity from service. Instead, it held that the Intervenors had cited no case in which one court granted immunity from service in another case. If the witnesses were served in the United States and believed the service violated immunity principles, the appropriate court would be the court from which the process was issued. Because any service was hypothetical and no specific proceeding had been identified, the Intervenors had come to the wrong court at the wrong time.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for reconsideration and denied the motion for a protective order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Dkt. No. 508.