Valtus Capital Group, LLC v. Parq Equity Limited Partnership
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-04737
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Valtus Capital Group v. Parq Equity, Judge Cote received Valtus’s request for documents held by Westmont, but the text shows no court ruling.
Valtus Capital Group, LLC, the Defendants or Company referred to in the letter, Westmont Hospitality Group, PBC Group, and Dundee Corporation.
What happened
Valtus Capital Group, LLC v. Parq Equity Limited Partnership concerns Valtus’s request for an informal conference about Defendants’ refusal to produce documents from Westmont Hospitality Group. Valtus said Westmont had provided approximately CAD$272 million to the Company and held significant economic and board control.
Valtus argued that the Company had legal or practical control over Westmont’s documents and therefore had to produce them during discovery. Valtus also said the Company was producing documents from two other owners but refusing to produce Westmont’s documents.
The text is a letter from Valtus’s lawyer to Judge Denise L. Cote, not a court order. It does not state that Judge Cote granted or denied the requested conference or ordered any document production.
The detailed version
- Valtus Capital Group, LLC v. Parq Equity Limited Partnership · No. 1:19-cv-04737
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 13, 2020
Nature of the document
The provided text is a letter from Joseph B. Schmit of Phillips Lytle LLP, representing Valtus Capital Group, LLC, to Judge Denise L. Cote. Valtus requested an informal conference under Rule 2(C) of Judge Cote’s individual practices concerning Defendants’ refusal to produce documents from Westmont Hospitality Group. The letter states that the parties had already held an unsuccessful meet-and-confer.
Background described by Valtus
Valtus stated that, between 2018 and 2019, Westmont issued Defendants, or the “Company,” approximately CAD$272 million through five interdependent fundings. According to Valtus, Westmont received approximately 55% of the Company’s economics and majority control of its board of directors. Valtus identified PBC Group and Dundee Corporation as the Company’s other two owners.
Valtus asserted that the Company was producing documents from PBC and Dundee but had taken the position that it was not required to produce documents from Westmont. Valtus also stated that it was serving Westmont with a subpoena.
Argument about document control
Valtus relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, which requires production of responsive documents within a party’s “possession, custody, or control.” The letter describes “control” as including a party’s legal right or practical ability to obtain documents from a nonparty. Valtus argued that control may exist where related entities work closely together or documents ordinarily flow between them.
Valtus claimed that the Company was largely an assembly of shell corporations with very few, if any, employees and could act only through its parent corporations. It further argued that Westmont had been closely involved with PBC and Dundee in the financing at the center of the litigation. Valtus asked that the Company be ordered to produce documents from Westmont’s files.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain a judicial ruling. It does not say that Judge Cote granted or denied Valtus’s request for an informal conference, ruled on the discovery dispute, or ordered production of Westmont’s documents. Accordingly, the text supports describing Valtus’s position and request, but not a court holding or disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.