Kreit v. Byblos Bank S.A.L.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-10751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kreit v. Byblos Bank S.A.L., Judge Liman denied early discovery and reconsideration of an attachment denial.
Nader Kreit’s requests for early discovery and reconsideration, and Byblos Bank S.A.L., which had not been served in the action.
What happened
In Kreit v. Byblos Bank S.A.L., Nader Kreit asked the court to reconsider its denial of an attachment, a request to secure property, and to allow limited discovery before the case’s normal discovery process began.
The court denied early discovery because Byblos Bank had not been served, the parties had not held the required conference, and Kreit did not identify the discovery sought or show good cause for expedited discovery. The court also said Kreit could seek discovery later if he served Byblos Bank and the bank challenged the court’s power over it.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied reconsideration because Kreit identified no new evidence, change in controlling law, or clear error. The clerk was directed to close the motions concerning reconsideration and the attachment.
The detailed version
- Kreit v. Byblos Bank S.A.L. · No. 1:22-cv-10751
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 28, 2023
Background
The court had previously denied Nader Kreit’s motion for an attachment, which is a request to secure property while a case is pending. The court found that Kreit had not shown a probability of success because he had not demonstrated a basis for the court to exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction based on property located in the forum. Kreit then moved for reconsideration of that denial and requested what he called “limited pretrial discovery.”
Byblos Bank S.A.L. had not been served and had not responded to the complaint. The parties had not held the conference required before ordinary discovery, the court had not entered a scheduling order, and the case was not exempt from initial disclosure requirements.
Early discovery
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the parties’ required conference unless the rules, a stipulation, or a court order permits it. The court explained that early discovery may be authorized under a flexible standard requiring reasonableness and good cause.
The court held that Kreit did not meet that standard. Although he alleged that a substantial amount of money was at stake and that information held by Byblos Bank was needed to advance his claims, he did not identify the discovery he wanted or explain why it would help his claims. He also did not explain why discovery should be expedited rather than conducted in the ordinary course. The court stated that, if Kreit served Byblos Bank and the bank later moved to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction, Kreit could then seek jurisdictional discovery.
Reconsideration
The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the movant identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Kreit argued that discovery would help show a connection between his claims and property in New York and establish that Byblos Bank had sufficient contacts with New York for personal jurisdiction.
The court concluded that this argument conceded that Kreit currently lacked facts that would change the prior decision. The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration. It directed the clerk to close Dkt. No. 29, the motion addressed in this order, and Dkt. No. 9, the earlier attachment motion. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against Byblos Bank.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.