Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's

Background

Accent Delight International Ltd. sued Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc. Accent Delight alleges that the auction house aided and abetted Yves Bouvier, an art broker who assisted Accent Delight and its principal, Dmitry Rybolovlev, in acquiring an art collection, in committing fraud and breaching fiduciary duties. The remaining claims involved aiding-and-abetting fraud concerning four artworks and aiding-and-abetting breach of fiduciary duty concerning the Leonardo da Vinci artwork. Trial was scheduled to begin on January 8, 2024.

The parties filed multiple motions in limine. These are pretrial requests asking the court to decide whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented to the jury.

Accent Delight’s Motions

- Motion in Limine No. 1: Denied. The court held that certain elements of Accent Delight’s claims had not previously been affirmatively treated as established for trial. Because the defendants did not agree to that treatment, the disputed elements remained for the jury to decide. - Motion in Limine No. 2: Denied as moot because of the defendants’ representations. - Motion in Limine No. 3: Granted in part and denied in part. The court would not limit Jane Levine’s testimony only to events from April through June 2013 and her meetings with Bouvier and Peretti. However, Levine could not testify about privileged matters or matters the defendants had prevented her from discussing during her deposition. Testimony outside the April-to-June period had to be directly relevant to the defendants’ opposition to equitable estoppel or concern Sotheby’s policies, practices, and efforts to comply with applicable laws, subject to those limits. - Motion in Limine No. 4: Denied as moot based on the defendants’ representations. The court stated that those representations also meant the defendants could not improperly bolster their position by asserting that Sotheby’s or its personnel had been cleared by an internal investigation or by referring to a federal investigation that did not result in charges against Bouvier. - Motions in Limine Nos. 5 and 6: Denied. Daisy Edelson and Simon Shaw could testify because the defendants showed a justification for the late disclosure, the testimony was important, and Accent Delight would not be unfairly prejudiced. Any depositions of those witnesses had to occur by December 15, 2023, and could last no more than three hours each. Michael Macaulay could also testify as a rebuttal witness. The court also allowed the Empire emails and attachments to be admitted. - Motion in Limine No. 7: Granted in part and denied in part. Evidence and argument about Rybolovlev’s wealth and sophistication could be presented, but the defendants could not use his wealth to arouse prejudice against Accent Delight; specific objections could still be made at trial. The issue concerning Rybolovlev’s past life in Russia appeared moot based on proposed redactions. The motion was denied as moot concerning the terms “oligarch” and “mother Russia,” while the defendants could use “shell company” in a non-pejorative way if the necessary facts were established. The motion was granted concerning evidence about Rybolovlev’s divorce, except that exhibit DX-560 could be admitted to provide context for a communication about artworks that could not be transacted under a Geneva court order. - Motion in Limine No. 8: Granted in part and denied in part. Evidence concerning proceedings in Monaco was excluded because the defendants had not shown that it was sufficiently critical to outweigh the respect owed to the Monaco Court of Appeals. The portion concerning evidence about arrests was denied as moot. The court denied the request to exclude evidence about ownership of Rothko’s No. 6 because that evidence might be relevant to damages. - Motion in Limine No. 9: The court reserved judgment.

Sotheby’s’ Motions

- Motion in Limine No. 1: Granted in part and denied in part. Evidence concerning transactions involved in dismissed claims was generally excluded, except when relevant to what the defendants understood about Bouvier’s art-market activities, confidentiality, or his relationship with Rybolovlev. The motion was granted concerning Sotheby’s common-interest agreement with Bouvier. The request concerning Bouvier’s refusal to answer questions was denied as moot regarding the common-interest agreement. The court found no basis to draw an adverse inference against the defendants from Bouvier’s refusal to answer questions about his due-diligence practices, but reserved judgment on whether the testimony was admissible and whether any inference could be drawn against Bouvier. The court was inclined to grant the request concerning a privilege-log entry but reserved judgment pending review of the original and corrected logs and the disputed document. The motion was denied concerning evidence of Sotheby’s compliance with its own policies, including “Know Your Client” and anti-money-laundering policies, because that evidence was relevant to agency, knowledge, and intent. The motion was granted concerning a mediation statement in a dispute between Sotheby’s, Inc. and the owners of the Salvator Mundi, but denied concerning Sotheby’s declaratory-judgment complaint. The court reserved judgment concerning the Wildenstein and Acquavella documents and testimony. The request concerning evidence of Bouvier’s arrest or other criminal proceedings was denied as moot. - Motion in Limine No. 2: Granted. Sanford Heller’s testimony was limited to meeting Rybolovlev and revealing Bouvier’s fraud to him. Heller could give a permitted lay opinion if the evidence rules allowed it, but he could not offer general opinions about the high-end art market, auction-house practices and policies, or signs of an agency relationship in the art market because those subjects were appropriate for expert testimony. - Motion in Limine No. 3: The court reserved judgment. - Motion in Limine No. 4: The court reserved judgment pending review of the parties’ designations and counter-designations. - Motion in Limine No. 5: The court reserved judgment pending discussion with the parties. The court indicated that irrelevant names and details would likely be redacted, while relevant information could remain because the public generally has a right to access documents admitted at trial.

Disposition and Classification

The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the docket entries for the parties’ motion filings, ECF Nos. 549 and 552. This was a pretrial evidence order; it did not resolve the merits of Accent Delight’s remaining fraud and fiduciary-duty claims. The classification is therefore procedural_order.