Legal Opinion
Moriah v. Bank of China Ltd.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 13, 2015No. 12 Civ. 1594(SAS)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION
On October. 14, 2014, the Court, on plaintiffs’ motion, issued an order to show cause why a subpoena should not issue1 for Joseph Cieehanover to give deposition testimony regarding a phone call he placed to plaintiffs’ counsel in the reláted. Wultz v. Bank of China case regarding the possibility of settlement. In his response, Ciechanover argued that the subpoena should not issue for two reasons: (1) it would not serve the interests of justice; and (2) Ciechanover- has testimonial immunity as an agent for the State of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Schooner Exchange v. McFaddonSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Samantar v. YousufSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Ex Parte Republic of PeruSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Foremost-Mckesson, Inc. v. The Islamic Republic of IranCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 v. Al QaidaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Ben-Haim v. EdriNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2018
- Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2023
- WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies LimitedDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020