Eletson Holdings Inc. and Eletson Corporation, Cross-Respondents, -v- Levona…
Eletson Holdings Inc. and Eletson Corporation, Cross-Respondents, -v- Levona Holdings Ltd., Cross-Petitioner, and Aparo Limited, Fentalon Limited, and Desimusco Trading Limited, Intervenors.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-07331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eletson Holdings v. Levona Holdings, Judge Liman ordered Reed Smith to produce 28 documents for review and denied review of two others.
Levona Holdings Ltd., Reed Smith LLP, and the parties involved in the dispute over the potentially privileged documents.
What happened
In Eletson Holdings v. Levona Holdings, Levona asked the court to review documents held by Reed Smith for possible application of the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.
The court ordered Reed Smith to produce documents 1 through 28 by September 12, 2025. It denied Levona’s request concerning documents 29 and 30. The court also allowed Reed Smith to submit a private explanation for why the exception does not apply to each of the 28 documents, limited to one paragraph of no more than eight sentences per document.
Judge Liman said Levona had presented enough evidence to support a reasonable belief that reviewing the 28 documents could show whether the crime-fraud exception applies.
The detailed version
- Eletson Holdings Inc. and Eletson Corporation, Cross-Respondents, -v- Levona… · No. 1:23-cv-07331
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
Levona Holdings asked the court to review documents held by Reed Smith LLP. The request concerned whether the crime-fraud exception could apply to otherwise privileged attorney-client communications. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or identify the specific contents of the documents.
Ruling
The court directed Reed Smith to produce documents 1 through 28 listed in Exhibit A to Levona’s August 30, 2025 letter, no later than September 12, 2025. The court found that Levona had presented evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an in camera review—meaning review by the judge rather than public disclosure—might produce evidence establishing whether the crime-fraud exception applies.
In making that decision, the court considered the case’s facts and circumstances, the volume of materials involved, the relative importance of the allegedly privileged information, and the likelihood that review would establish the exception’s applicability.
The court denied Levona’s request for review of documents 29 and 30. It granted Reed Smith’s request to submit an ex parte explanation, meaning a private submission to the court, addressing why the crime-fraud exception does not apply to each of the 28 documents. Reed Smith may submit one paragraph of no more than eight sentences for each document.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.