NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 2:14-cv-00492-RFB-VCF. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190328e05
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Before the Court is the Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 305) and Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 243). The Court grants the Motion for Clarification and denies the Motion for Sanctions. The Court does not find that there is sufficient evidence to find that M.F. Corporate Services ("MF Nevada") or Mossack Fonseca engaged in a willful abuse of the discovery process. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 , 766 (1980). The Court does n
Summary: ORDER RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Before the Court is the Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 305) and Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 243). The Court grants the Motion for Clarification and denies the Motion for Sanctions. The Court does not find that there is sufficient evidence to find that M.F. Corporate Services ("MF Nevada") or Mossack Fonseca engaged in a willful abuse of the discovery process. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 , 766 (1980). The Court does no..
More
ORDER
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 305) and Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 243). The Court grants the Motion for Clarification and denies the Motion for Sanctions.
The Court does not find that there is sufficient evidence to find that M.F. Corporate Services ("MF Nevada") or Mossack Fonseca engaged in a willful abuse of the discovery process. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980). The Court does not find that the so-called "Panama Papers" are sufficiently reliable or persuasive to establish sanctionable conduct by MF Nevada or Mossack Fonseca. MF Nevada actually participated in and produced documents in discovery. MF Nevada raised plausible and appropriate objections to certain discovery demands while still providing information and documents. Mossack Fonseca raised legitimate objections to legal arguments by the Plaintiff as well as appropriate jurisdictional arguments. Based upon these findings and the record here, the Court does not find either entity engaged in willful or bad faith conduct during discovery. Consequently, the Court denies the Motion for Sanctions.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 305) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 243) is DENIED. This case shall remain closed.
Source: Leagle
