In Re Application of GORSOAN LIMITED and GAZPROMBANK OJSC for an Order Pursuant…

Background

Gazprombank OJSC and its assignee, Gorsoan Limited, sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for use in a dispute with Janna Bullock that was pending in Cyprus. The court had previously held Bullock in contempt and ordered her to produce documents concerning the Landmark Trust. In June 2020, the court also held that Bullock had waived the protection against compelled production of documents that might incriminate her, and ordered her to resume an email-review process agreed to by the parties.

After Bullock completed productions under that process, Gorsoan requested additional discovery: (1) bank-account statements from August 8, 2012, through the present for accounts at six specified banks and successor or transferee accounts; (2) records from the same period concerning 17 specified assets or payment obligations; (3) records concerning the Landmark Trust regardless of when created; and (4) a third deposition of Bullock. Bullock opposed all four requests.

The Court’s Analysis

The court held that the parties’ June 29, 2020 agreement governed the scope of the remaining email review. Because Gorsoan knew that the agreement covered only two email accounts and emails collected through November 2016, the court held Gorsoan to that agreement. The court did not interpret the agreement as preventing other forms of discovery, including the collection and production of paper or electronic records other than emails.

The court rejected Bullock’s argument that records created after November 2016 could not be used in the Cyprus proceeding. It concluded that the requested discovery could bear on Bullock’s compliance with the Cyprus court’s asset-freeze order and could provide Gorsoan an advantage in that proceeding. The court also rejected Bullock’s self-incrimination argument because Bullock had already produced thousands of additional documents covering the same subject matter, and she had not explained why the requested supplemental production would increase her risk of prosecution for perjury.

The court further held that the requests were within the broad scope of the underlying subpoena, which covered documents concerning the existence, location, ownership, and control of assets exceeding 10,000 Euros. It found that existing production did not answer several outstanding issues. The court noted that records concerning tuition payments could reveal assets used to make those payments, even though tuition payments themselves were not assets.

Ruling

Judge Richard J. Sullivan granted in part and denied in part Gorsoan’s requests for discovery. Bullock was ordered to produce within 30 days: account statements from the six specified banks and related successor or transferee accounts; non-email paper and electronic records concerning the 17 specified assets and payment obligations; and non-email paper and electronic records concerning the Landmark Trust, regardless of creation date.

The court also granted Gorsoan’s request for a third deposition. It held that Bullock’s earlier conduct had prevented the prior depositions from producing usable testimony. Bullock could assert her protection against self-incrimination on a question-by-question basis, but that protection did not excuse her from attending the deposition. The deposition was to occur 30 days after Bullock completed her remaining production obligations. The order did not expand the agreed limits on email review.