Legal Opinion
In Re Godfrey
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 30, 2007No. M-19-99PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
On October 1, 2007, petitioners David Godfrey and Bruce Misamore filed, ex parte, an Application for Discovery in Aid of a Foreign Proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Specifically, they requested (1) leave to serve subpoenas duces tecum on respondents VR Capital Group (“VR Capital”), Renaissance Capital LLC-Financial Consultant (“Renaissance Capital”), Robert Dietz, Richard Foresman, and Stephen Patrick Lynch; (2) leave to serve subpoenas ad testificandum on same; (3) a court order requiring VR Capital and Renaissance Capital to provide a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of MarinSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2004
- In Re Microsoft Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of CanadaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
3Cited by13 opinions
- In Re VeigaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- In re del Valle RuizCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
- In re Qualcomm Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
- Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd.District Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- In re Carlton Masters for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign ProceedingCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.