Counsel for the Applicant in the Gaston Browne Corruption Discovery Application, the §1782 SDNY proceeding seeking evidence regarding USD$10million missing in the disputed sale of a luxury yacht claimed by the Applicant, has filed a thirty page Memorandum of Law in opposition to the pending Motion to Quash, filed by the Browne PEPs and related entities. I find the argument, which contains extensive citations to legal authorities, clear and convincing in opposition to the movants' efforts to quash; it responds effectively to each and every affirmative defense advanced by the Browne parties.
To briefly summarize the Memorandum:
1. STANDING: the Browne parties cannot object to the subpoenas issues against any parties who have not intervened in the matter, as they have no legal Standing to act on their behalf.
2. THE APPLICATION MEETS THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR DISCOVERY REQUIRED BY §1782. The Memorandum goes on to detail each and every requirement, was not brought in Bad Faith, and was accompanied by unrebutted Expert Testimony; the Discovery is properly for use in Foreign Judicial Proceedings, and is not Overbroad.
3. THE DISCRETIONARY FACTORS WEIGH IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE APPLICATION: The Discovery subjects are not participants in the Foreign Proceedings, the character of the Proceedings support the granting of the Discovery requested; the request is narrowly tailored,and not unduly burdensome.
4. THE REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT WAS NOT PROPERLY PLED UNDER LOCAL RULES; such a request will only delay the matter, and it was procedurally flawed.
Readers who wish to review these issues in more detail are urged to review the complete text of the Memorandum.
We note that the Court has previously allowed Discovery to proceed, but has required that the Applicant's counsel to hold the responses pending a ruling on the Motions to Quash. As we detailed in our previous article, Counsel Files a Response ... (April 24, 2025), the Court is allowing the subpoenas to be served, only requiring that the responses be held by counsel, pending a definitive ruling on the Motions to Quash. A proposed Stipulation and Protective Order is pending for the Court's signature.