Rimu Capital Ltd. v. Ader
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-05065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rimu Capital v. Ader, Judge Liman granted 26 Capital Acquisition Corp.’s intervention but denied Movants’ protective-order motion over public Delaware trial exhibits.
26 Capital Acquisition Corp. and the defendants sought to prevent Milbank LLP from producing joint trial exhibits to Rimu Capital Ltd. The court allowed 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. to intervene for that limited purpose but denied protection from production.
What happened
In Rimu Capital Ltd. v. Ader, 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. and the defendants asked to intervene so they could oppose a subpoena served on Milbank LLP. The subpoena sought copies of trial exhibits from a separate Delaware case involving 26 Capital Acquisition Corp.
The court allowed 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking protection from the subpoena. The Movants argued that producing the exhibits would invade privacy rights and expressed concern about possible misuse of the documents.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to intervene but denied the motion for a protective order. He found that the exhibits were already public, had lost any confidential status under the Delaware case’s protective order, and that the Movants had not identified specific harm from disclosure.
The detailed version
- Rimu Capital Ltd. v. Ader · No. 1:23-cv-05065
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 20, 2023
Background
Rimu Capital Ltd. served a subpoena on Milbank LLP seeking copies of joint trial exhibits introduced in a separate Delaware Chancery Court action, 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. et al. v. Tiger Resort Asia Ltd., C.A. No. 2023-0128-JTL. The subpoena was limited to copies of those exhibits.
26 Capital Acquisition Corp. moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). It and the defendants—Jason Ader, SpringOwl Asset Management LLC, SpringOwl Associates LLC, Ader Fund Management LLC, and 26 Capital Holdings LLC—also sought a protective order preventing production of documents that they had produced or that contained their information. They argued that the subpoena invaded their privacy rights, or a limited privacy right. They also raised concern about possible misuse of the documents.
Court’s Analysis
The court granted intervention for the limited purpose of seeking a protective order. The motion to intervene was unopposed, and Rimu Capital did not dispute that the interests asserted by 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. in some documents might not otherwise be adequately protected by the defendants.
The court denied the protective-order motion. It explained that the information in the joint trial exhibits was already public. The parties in the Delaware case had agreed in their protective order that confidential material used in open court or lodged as a trial exhibit would lose its confidential status and become part of the public record unless the producing party obtained a specific order preserving confidentiality. The Movants did not argue that anyone had obtained such an order.
The court also noted that the exhibits were filed with the Delaware Chancery Court, that the Delaware court’s September 7, 2023 opinion cited the trial evidence and exhibits extensively, and that a member of Rimu Capital’s law firm had been present when the exhibits were discussed and displayed in court. The Movants did not identify any specific harm from disclosure. The court further stated that, even if misuse were a concern, the Movants had not explained why an appropriate protective order could not prevent it.
Disposition
The motion to intervene was GRANTED. The motion for a protective order was DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket No. 39. This order addressed intervention and protection from subpoenaed documents; it did not decide the underlying claims in the action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.