Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-09786
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic, Judge Preska’s materials contain no ruling on the discovery dispute.
The discovery dispute affects the plaintiffs and the Republic of Argentina, but the provided material does not identify the plaintiffs in the supplied case name or show a court ruling affecting their legal claims.
What happened
Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic is identified as involving a dispute over discovery, but the provided text is a letter from Argentina’s counsel in a differently captioned matter.
The letter asks the court to require plaintiffs to provide information and documents about acquiring the securities, their reasons for acquiring them, and their understanding of the securities’ terms. Argentina says the requests relate to its contract, champerty, and mutual-mistake defenses.
Judge Preska’s notation says counsel must be prepared to discuss the issues at a later conference. The provided material does not show that the court granted or denied a motion or otherwise ruled on the discovery requests.
The detailed version
- Novoriver S.A. v. Argentine Republic · No. 1:19-cv-09786
- Loretta Preska
- Nov. 4, 2021
Nature of the Material
The provided text is not a judicial opinion deciding a motion. It is a November 2, 2021 letter from counsel for the Republic of Argentina requesting a discovery conference or permission to file a motion to compel. The letter’s “Re” line identifies a different matter: Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., et al. v. The Republic of Argentina, with several Southern District of New York docket numbers. The supplied case name and the caption in the letter therefore do not match.
Argentina’s Discovery Requests
Argentina asked the court to require the plaintiffs to respond to interrogatories and document requests. The requested material concerned:
- the plaintiffs’ acquisition, ownership, financing, and possible assignment of the securities; - the plaintiffs’ reasons for acquiring the securities, including information relevant to Argentina’s champerty defense; and - the plaintiffs’ communications and analysis concerning the securities’ terms and Argentina’s payment obligations.
Argentina argued that this information was relevant to the plaintiffs’ contract claims, standing, the timeliness of the claims, the champerty defense, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the defense of mutual mistake.
Arguments in the Letter
Argentina’s counsel asserted that the plaintiffs had refused to provide most nonpublic information beyond certain ownership records and pre-litigation communications. The letter stated that the plaintiffs had received thousands of pages from Argentina and had issued subpoenas to financial institutions and a law firm concerning the securities. The letter also referred to an admission by WASO Holding Corporation, in an amended complaint, concerning when it purchased most of its securities.
Court Action Shown
The provided material does not contain a ruling on the discovery dispute. A notation states that counsel should be prepared to address the issues raised in Argentina’s letter at a conference set for November 9, 2021. It does not say that the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the requested relief. Judge Loretta A. Preska is identified in the supplied materials, but no judicial opinion or order by her is included in the text provided.
Disposition
No disposition is shown in the provided material.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.