FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
` FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03m2020 07:19 P
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO.
`118
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`EX NO.
`151772/2016
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`
`IND
` VYSC
`
`
` 3F:
`
`
`RfiCfiIVfiD
`03/04/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`D
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT D
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`[FILED
`06:03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`
`COURT OF THE STATE
`OF NEW YORK
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`GETTY
`PROPERTIES
`COMPANY
`LIMITED
`PETROLEUM,
`
`INC.,
`
`POWER TEST REALTY
`CORP.;
`PARTNERSHIP
`and
`LEEMILT'S
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`AMERICAS
`LUKOIL
`CORPORATION,
`DELAURENTIS
`and VADIM
`GLUZMAN,
`
`VINCENT
`
`Defendants.
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`151772/2016
`
`Mot.
`
`Seq.
`
`002
`
`Hon.
`
`O. Peter
`
`Sherwood
`
`MEMORANDUM
`AMERICAS
`LUKOIL
`DEFENDANTS
`AND VADIM
`GLUZMAN'S
`
`OF LAW IN SUPPORT
`OF
`VINCENT
`CORPORATION,
`FOR A PROTECTIVE
`MOTION
`
`DELAURENTIS,
`ORDER
`
`Qureshi
`Abid
`L. Sorkin
`Joseph
`M. Evans
`Anne
`Roseman
`Daniella
`GUMP STRAUSS
`AKIN
`Bryant
`Park
`One
`New York,
`New York
`
`10036
`
`HAUER & FELD
`
`LLP
`
`Counsel
`
`for
`
`Corporation,
`Gluzman
`
`Defendants
`Vincent
`
`Lukoil
`
`DeLaurentis,
`
`Americas
`and
`
`Vadim
`
`1 of
`
`14
`
`

`

`PM
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`FILED
`01/08/2020
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`TABLE
`
`OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PRELIMINARY
`
`STATEMENT.......................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`..........................................................................................................2
`
`ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`THE DOCUMENTS
`
`SOUGHT
`
`ARE
`
`PRIVILEGED
`
`.............................................5
`
`GPMI AND LAC'S
`
`JOINT
`
`PRIVILEGE
`
`WAS NEVER
`
`WAIVED
`
`.......................6
`
`FROM ARGUING
`ESTOPPED
`ARE
`PLAINTIFFS
`WAIVED..................................................................................................................8
`
`PRIVILEGE
`
`WAS
`
`CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`OF COMPLIANCE
`
`WITH
`
`COMMERCIAL
`
`DIVISION
`
`RULE
`
`17 ..............11
`
`.1
`
`2
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`PM
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`FILED
`01/08/2020
`03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`06:
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`TABLE
`
`OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`80 Nassau
`169 B.R.
`
`Assocs.
`832
`
`v. Crossland
`(Bankr.
`S.D.N.Y.
`
`Fed.
`
`re 80 Nassau
`(In
`Sav. Bank
`Assocs.),
`1994).......................................................................................9
`
`of New York
`Bowne
`150 F.R.D.
`465
`
`Inc.
`City,
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`v. AmBase
`Corp.,
`1993)...............................................................................................6
`
`Certain
`218
`
`Underwriters
`F. Supp.
`
`3d
`
`at Lloyd's,
`197
`(E.D.N.Y.
`
`Passenger
`R.R.
`v. Nat'l
`London
`Corp.,
`2016).......................................................................................6
`
`Matter
`of Grand
`175 Misc.
`
`Jury
`2d 398
`
`Investigation,
`(Onondaga
`
`County
`
`Ct.
`
`1998)........................................................................9
`
`N.Y.
`
`Newspaper
`Times
`300 A.D.2d
`169
`
`v. Lehrer
`McGovern
`Div.
`Bovis,
`Inc.,
`(1st Dept.
`2002)...............................................................................................7
`
`Pub.
`In re Initial
`249
`F.R.D.
`
`Offering
`457
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`Sec.
`
`Litig.,
`2008)...............................................................................................7
`
`v. Bd.
`McManus
`87 N.Y.2d
`
`Sch. Dist.,
`Free
`Union
`of Hempstead
`of Educ.
`183
`(1995)................................................................................................................8
`
`v. Pennachio,
`People
`167 Misc.
`2d
`
`114
`
`(Sup.
`
`Ct., Kings
`
`County
`
`1995)......................................................................5
`
`Cities
`Triple
`4 N.Y.2d
`
`Constr.
`443
`
`Cas.
`v. Maryland
`Co.
`Co.,
`(1958)..................................................................................................................8
`
`United
`No.
`
`v. Wells
`States
`12-CV-7527
`
`Fargo
`
`(JMF),
`
`Bank,
`N.A.,
`2015 WL 5051679
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`Aug.
`
`26,
`
`2015)...................................7
`
`Urban
`No.
`
`Box Office
`
`Network,
`01CIV.8854(LTS)(THK),
`
`Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Interfase
`Managers,
`2004 WL 2375819
`
`L.P.,
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`Oct.
`
`21,
`
`2004).......................6,
`
`Other
`
`Authorities
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 3103(a)...........................................................................................................................1,
`
`FRE 502(d).......................................................................................................................................7
`
`7
`
`4
`
`..
`n
`
`3
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`Defendants
`
`Lukoil
`
`Americas
`
`Corporation
`
`("LAC"),
`
`Vincent
`
`DeLaurentis
`
`("DeLaurentis"),
`
`and Vadim
`
`Gluzman
`
`("Gluzman")
`
`(collectively,
`
`"Defendants"),
`
`by
`
`and
`
`through
`
`their
`
`counsel,
`
`Akin
`
`Gump
`
`Strauss
`
`Hauer
`
`& Feld
`
`LLP,
`
`for
`
`their motion
`
`for
`
`a Protective
`
`Order
`
`under
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 3103(a),
`
`respectfully
`
`state
`
`as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY
`
`STATEMENT
`
`This
`
`is a case
`
`about
`
`environmental
`
`liabilities
`
`stemming
`
`from
`
`a specific
`
`lease
`
`agreement
`
`between
`
`Getty
`
`Petroleum
`
`Marketing,
`
`Inc.
`
`("GPMI")
`
`and Plaintiff
`
`Getty
`
`Properties
`
`Corporation
`
`Power
`
`("Getty").
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Getty,
`
`Test Realty
`
`Company
`
`Limited
`
`Partnership,
`
`and
`
`Leemilt's
`
`Petroleum,
`
`Inc.
`
`(collectively
`
`"Plaintiffs")
`
`seek wide-ranging
`
`discovery,
`
`including
`
`privileged
`
`trial
`
`testimony
`
`and
`
`exhibits
`
`from
`
`an entirely
`
`separate
`
`and
`
`unrelated
`
`adversary
`
`proceeding
`
`in a
`
`bankruptcy
`
`case.
`
`The materials
`
`sought
`
`include
`
`core,
`
`privileged
`
`documents
`
`and work
`
`product
`
`such
`
`as direct
`
`testimony,
`
`internal
`
`communications
`
`and
`
`legal memoranda
`
`of LAC's
`
`legal
`
`counsel.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`believe
`
`they
`
`are entitled
`
`to the privileged
`
`materials
`
`because
`
`in the
`
`course
`
`of
`
`that
`
`unrelated
`
`proceeding,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Getty's
`
`prior
`
`counsel
`
`was
`
`permitted
`
`to access
`
`the materials.
`
`Critically,
`
`however,
`
`Getty's
`
`prior
`
`access
`
`was
`
`conditioned
`
`upon
`
`strict
`
`limiting
`
`instructions
`
`from
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`(defined
`
`below)
`
`and
`
`pursuant
`
`to a protective
`
`order
`
`limiting
`
`the
`
`use
`
`of
`
`such
`
`materials
`
`that was
`
`stipulated
`
`to by
`
`the parties
`
`and
`
`so ordered
`
`by
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court.
`
`Getty's
`
`limited
`
`prior
`
`access
`
`to the privileged
`
`materials
`
`at
`
`issue
`
`did
`
`not
`
`effect
`
`a waiver
`
`of
`
`a waiver
`
`render
`
`the
`
`attorney-client
`
`privilege.
`
`To find
`
`here would
`
`meaningless
`
`Getty's
`
`promise
`
`to
`
`use
`
`the privileged
`
`materials
`
`solely
`
`for
`
`the
`
`relevant
`
`proceeding-the
`
`very
`
`basis
`
`for Getty's
`
`access
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time-and
`
`would
`
`dissolve
`
`an attorney-client
`
`privilege
`
`that
`
`has been
`
`protected
`
`for
`
`over
`
`a
`
`decade,
`
`with
`
`ramifications
`
`in other,
`
`unrelated
`
`litigations.
`
`Thus,
`
`Defendants
`
`respectfully
`
`seek
`
`a
`
`Protective
`
`Order
`
`from
`
`the Court
`
`preventing
`
`disclosure
`
`of
`
`these
`
`privileged
`
`materials.
`
`1
`
`4
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`FACTUAL
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`seek
`
`disclosure
`
`of privileged
`
`documents
`
`from
`
`a separate
`
`proceeding.
`
`In 2011,
`
`GPMI,
`
`then
`
`a subsidiary
`
`of Cambridge
`
`Petroleum
`
`Holdings,
`
`Inc.,
`
`filed
`
`for
`
`chapter
`
`11 bankruptcy
`
`in the United
`
`States
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York
`
`(the
`
`"Bankruptcy
`
`Court").
`
`Sorkin
`
`Aff.
`
`¶ 3. GPMI
`
`and
`
`the
`
`liquidating
`
`trustee
`
`filed
`
`an adversary
`
`proceeding
`
`against
`
`LAC and
`
`others
`
`(the
`
`"GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding"),
`
`asserting
`
`claims
`
`for
`
`fraudulent
`
`conveyance
`
`of
`
`from
`
`of GPMI's
`
`assets
`
`(the
`
`"2009
`
`and
`
`breaches
`
`fiduciary
`
`duties
`
`arising
`
`a 2009
`
`restructuring
`
`Restructuring").
`
`Id.
`
`¶ 4.
`
`At
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`the
`
`2009
`
`Restructuring,
`
`GPMI
`
`was
`
`a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary
`
`of LAC and
`
`the
`
`same
`
`in-house
`
`and
`
`outside
`
`counsel
`
`represented
`
`both
`
`parent
`
`company
`
`(LAC)
`
`and
`
`subsidiary
`
`(GPMI).
`
`Id.
`
`¶ 5. Naturally,
`
`the
`
`legal
`
`advice
`
`GPMI
`
`and LAC received
`
`in connection
`
`with
`
`the
`
`2009
`
`Restructuring
`
`was
`
`frequently
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`of
`
`testimony
`
`in the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding,
`
`which
`
`of
`
`trial
`
`10.
`
`Trial
`
`included
`
`numerous
`
`depositions
`
`and
`
`17 days
`
`testimony.
`
`See id. ¶¶ 6-7,
`
`and
`
`deposition
`
`witnesses
`
`included
`
`businesspeople
`
`describing
`
`legal
`
`advice
`
`received
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`transaction
`
`as well
`
`as GPMI
`
`and
`
`LAC's
`
`legal
`
`counsel
`
`describing
`
`legal
`
`advice
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`transaction.
`
`Id.
`
`¶ 6.
`
`Trial
`
`exhibits
`
`included
`
`communications
`
`reflecting
`
`legal
`
`advice
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`transaction,
`
`as well
`
`as related
`
`internal
`
`correspondence
`
`and
`
`internal
`
`legal memoranda
`
`of GPMI
`
`and
`
`LAC's
`
`legal
`
`counsel.
`
`Id.
`
`To enable
`
`GPMI
`
`to put
`
`on its
`
`the
`
`use
`
`of
`
`¶ 7.
`
`case, which
`
`required
`
`these materials,
`
`the parties
`
`and
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`went
`
`to great
`
`lengths
`
`to protect
`
`this
`
`privileged
`
`information,
`
`including
`
`entering
`
`a stipulated
`
`protective
`
`order
`
`which
`
`limited
`
`use
`
`of
`
`disclosed
`
`materials
`
`"only
`
`for
`
`purposes
`
`related
`
`to the
`
`[GPMI]
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceedings
`
`and
`
`not
`
`for
`
`any
`
`commercial,
`
`business,
`
`competitive
`
`or other
`
`purpose."
`
`Id.,
`
`Ex. A¶
`
`1 (the
`
`"Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order").
`
`The
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`recognized
`
`a waiver
`
`"in
`
`a very
`
`limited
`
`2
`
`5
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`way
`
`for
`
`this
`
`case."
`
`Id.,
`
`Ex. B (GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`May
`
`20,
`
`2013
`
`Hearing
`
`Tr.)
`
`13:10-13
`
`(emphasis
`
`added).
`
`The Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`established
`
`strict
`
`procedures
`
`for
`
`sealing
`
`the
`
`courtroom
`
`during
`
`privileged
`
`testimony.
`
`Except
`
`for
`
`testimony
`
`by
`
`third
`
`parties
`
`like
`
`experts,
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`was
`
`sealed
`
`for
`
`all
`
`or part
`
`of
`
`14 days
`
`of
`
`the
`
`17-day
`
`trial
`
`to ensure
`
`that
`
`the privilege
`
`would
`
`remain
`
`Court
`
`to submit
`
`a notice
`
`intact.
`
`See Sorkin
`
`Aff.
`
`¶ 10.
`
`The Bankruptcy
`
`also
`
`required
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`advising
`
`that
`
`the
`
`next
`
`day
`
`of
`
`the
`
`hearing
`
`would
`
`require
`
`sealing
`
`under
`
`the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`id., Ex. C (GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`June
`
`5, 2013
`
`Hearing
`
`Tr.)
`
`and Ex. D (example
`
`notice).
`
`Because
`
`Getty
`
`funded
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding,
`
`and
`
`sought
`
`to participate
`
`in the
`
`proceedings,
`
`Getty's
`
`counsel
`
`agreed
`
`to and
`
`signed
`
`the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order,
`
`which
`
`counsel
`
`was
`
`was
`
`entered
`
`by
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court.
`
`Id.
`
`¶ 13, Ex. A at 11.
`
`Thus,
`
`Getty's
`
`allowed
`
`to remain
`
`in the
`
`sealed
`
`courtroom
`
`and
`
`to review
`
`privileged
`
`exhibits
`
`for
`
`purposes
`
`of
`
`the
`
`GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding,
`
`and
`
`subject
`
`to the
`
`limitations
`
`of
`
`the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order
`
`and
`
`the
`
`procedures
`
`implemented
`
`by
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court.
`
`On November
`
`8, 2019,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`submitted
`
`a three-page
`
`letter
`
`to this Court,
`
`arguing
`
`that
`
`transcripts
`
`and
`
`trial
`
`exhibits
`
`sought
`
`from
`
`the GPMI
`
`which
`
`Defendants
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`withheld
`
`as privileged,
`
`should
`
`be produced
`
`because,
`
`inter
`
`alia,
`
`Getty
`
`received
`
`these
`
`privileged
`
`materials
`
`in the
`
`course
`
`of
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`pursuant
`
`to the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order
`
`and
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court's
`
`sealing
`
`procedures.
`
`On November
`
`22,
`
`2019,
`
`Defendants
`
`responded
`
`to Plaintiffs
`
`with
`
`a three-page
`
`letter,
`
`after
`
`which,
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`attended
`
`a
`
`Court
`
`conference
`
`on December
`
`10, 2019,
`
`discussing
`
`the privilege
`
`issues.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`submitted
`
`a
`
`3
`
`6 of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`further
`
`two-page
`
`letter
`
`on December
`
`10, 2019.
`
`Defendants
`
`responded
`
`with
`
`a two-page
`
`letter
`
`on
`
`December
`
`16, 2019.
`
`On December
`
`23,
`
`2019,
`
`the Court
`
`issued
`
`an Order,
`
`finding
`
`the privilege
`
`was waived
`
`when
`
`privileged
`
`materials
`
`were
`
`provided
`
`to Getty
`
`during
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding,
`
`and
`
`ordering
`
`Defendants
`
`to produce
`
`"all
`
`relevant
`
`documents
`
`in this
`
`category
`
`responsive
`
`to
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`requests
`
`on or before
`
`January
`
`8,
`
`2020"
`
`(the
`
`"December
`
`23 Order").
`
`Defendants
`
`are in the
`
`of
`
`at
`
`for
`
`are prepared
`
`with
`
`the
`
`process
`
`reviewing
`
`the
`
`documents
`
`issue
`
`relevance
`
`and
`
`to comply
`
`Court's
`
`Order.
`
`However,
`
`Defendants
`
`believe
`
`a fully
`
`developed
`
`record
`
`on this
`
`complex
`
`issue
`
`that
`
`results
`
`in an order
`
`that
`
`is appealable
`
`under
`
`the CPLR
`
`is appropriate
`
`before
`
`a finding
`
`of waiver.
`
`Defendants
`
`respectfully
`
`ask
`
`the Court
`
`to grant
`
`a Protective
`
`Order
`
`preventing
`
`disclosure
`
`of
`
`privileged
`
`materials
`
`and
`
`staying
`
`discovery
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`the December
`
`23 Order
`
`pending
`
`the Court's
`
`final
`
`Order
`
`on this
`
`issue,
`
`and
`
`disclosure
`
`of privileged
`
`materials
`
`pending
`
`any
`
`appeal
`
`of
`
`that
`
`final
`
`Order.
`
`staying
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court
`
`may
`
`"on motion
`
`of any
`
`party
`
`or of any
`
`person
`
`from
`
`whom or about
`
`whom
`
`discovery
`
`is sought,
`
`make
`
`a protective
`
`order
`
`denying,
`
`limiting,
`
`conditioning
`
`or
`
`regulating
`
`the
`
`use
`
`of any
`
`disclosure
`
`device.
`
`Such
`
`order
`
`shall
`
`be designed
`
`to prevent
`
`unreasonable
`
`annoyance,
`
`expense,
`
`embarrassment,
`
`disadvantage,
`
`or other
`
`prejudice
`
`to any
`
`person
`
`or
`
`the
`
`courts."
`
`CPLR
`
`§
`
`3103(a).
`
`Defendants
`
`seek
`
`a Protective
`
`Order
`
`preventing
`
`disclosure
`
`of privileged
`
`materials
`
`and
`
`final
`
`staying
`
`discovery
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`the Court's
`
`December
`
`23 Order
`
`pending
`
`the Court's
`
`Order
`
`on this
`
`issue,
`
`and
`
`pending
`
`any
`
`appeal
`
`of
`
`that
`
`final
`
`Order.
`
`Defendants
`
`respectfully
`
`ask
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`a Protective
`
`Order
`
`to stay
`
`the production
`
`of privileged
`
`documents
`
`that
`
`LAC has
`
`preserved
`
`for
`
`over
`
`a decade,
`
`the
`
`disclosure
`
`of which
`
`could
`
`affect
`
`discovery
`
`not
`
`only
`
`in this
`
`case,
`
`but
`
`also
`
`in other,
`
`unrelated
`
`pending
`
`and
`
`potential
`
`future
`
`litigations.
`
`4
`
`7
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`L
`
`THE DOCUMENTS
`
`SOUGHT
`
`ARE PRIVILEGED
`
`Two
`
`corporations
`
`that
`
`share
`
`the
`
`same
`
`counsel
`
`may
`
`hold
`
`a so-called
`
`joint-
`
`or co-client
`
`privilege.
`
`See,
`
`e.g., People
`
`v. Pennachio,
`
`167 Misc.
`
`2d
`
`114,
`
`116
`
`(Sup.
`
`Ct., Kings
`
`County
`
`1995)
`
`("In New York
`
`where
`
`one
`
`attorney
`
`represents
`
`multiple
`
`parties
`
`concerning
`
`a matter
`
`of
`
`common
`
`interest,
`
`any
`
`confidential
`
`communications
`
`exchanged
`
`among
`
`them
`
`are privileged
`
`against
`
`the
`
`outside
`
`world.").
`
`While
`
`the privilege
`
`does
`
`not
`
`apply
`
`in disputes
`
`between
`
`co-clients,
`
`such
`
`as
`
`between
`
`LAC
`
`and GPMI
`
`in the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding,
`
`it does
`
`apply
`
`in disputes
`
`between
`
`a
`
`co-client
`
`and
`
`third
`
`parties,
`
`such
`
`as this
`
`litigation.
`
`Because
`
`LAC
`
`and GPMI
`
`shared
`
`legal
`
`counsel
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`the
`
`transaction,
`
`the parties
`
`held
`
`a joint
`
`privilege
`
`in connection
`
`with
`
`the
`
`2009
`
`Restructuring.
`
`The
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`recognized
`
`that
`
`LAC and GPMI
`
`were
`
`joint
`
`clients
`
`entitled
`
`to keep
`
`their
`
`communications
`
`with
`
`counsel
`
`from
`
`thus
`
`sealed
`
`documents
`
`and
`
`cleared
`
`the
`
`courtroom
`
`when
`
`private
`
`third
`
`parties,
`
`and
`
`those
`
`communications
`
`were
`
`discussed.
`
`Similarly,
`
`in a separate
`
`case
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of
`
`New York,
`
`Judge
`
`Scheindlin
`
`reviewed
`
`redacted
`
`testimony
`
`from
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding-documents
`
`among
`
`those
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`seek
`
`here-and
`
`confirmed
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`privileged.
`
`See Sorkin
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex.
`
`E (Order,
`
`In
`
`re Methyl
`
`Tertiary
`
`Butyl
`
`Ether
`
`Prod.
`
`Liab.
`
`Litig.,
`
`No.
`
`00-cv-
`
`01898
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`May
`
`26,
`
`2015),
`
`ECF No.
`
`4215).
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`seek
`
`here
`
`are core
`
`privileged
`
`materials.
`
`The
`
`documents
`
`include
`
`The
`
`documents
`
`trial
`
`testimony
`
`and
`
`exhibits
`
`related
`
`to legal
`
`advice
`
`regarding
`
`details
`
`of
`
`the
`
`2009
`
`Restructuring,
`
`as
`
`well
`
`as deposition
`
`testimony
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`same
`
`topics.
`
`In addition
`
`to trial
`
`and
`
`deposition
`
`testimony
`
`of businesspeople
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`legal
`
`advice
`
`they
`
`received
`
`related
`
`to structuring
`
`transaction,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`seek
`
`direct
`
`testimony
`
`from
`
`GPMI
`
`and
`
`LAC's
`
`legal
`
`counsel.
`
`Further,
`
`the
`
`in
`
`addition
`
`to correspondence
`
`among
`
`businesspeople
`
`regarding
`
`legal
`
`advice
`
`and
`
`between
`
`5
`
`8 of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`[FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`businesspeople
`
`and
`
`legal
`
`counsel,
`
`trial
`
`exhibits
`
`that Plaintiffs
`
`seek
`
`include
`
`internal
`
`communications
`
`and
`
`legal memoranda
`
`of GPMI
`
`and
`
`LAC's
`
`legal
`
`counsel.
`
`Such materials
`
`lie
`
`at
`
`the
`
`heart
`
`of
`
`the
`
`attorney-client
`
`privilege.
`
`II.
`
`GPMI
`
`AND LAC'S
`
`JOINT
`
`PRIVILEGE
`
`WAS NEVER WAIVED
`
`GPMI
`
`and
`
`LAC's
`
`joint
`
`privilege
`
`was
`
`not waived
`
`in the
`
`course
`
`of
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding.
`
`First,
`
`LAC did
`
`not
`
`affirmatively
`
`use privileged
`
`materials
`
`in the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`in that
`
`sought
`
`to use materials
`
`subject
`
`to a
`
`Proceeding.
`
`It was
`
`the plaintiff
`
`case, GPMI,
`
`who
`
`privilege
`
`it shared
`
`with
`
`LAC to prove
`
`its
`
`case
`
`against
`
`LAC.
`
`To enable
`
`GPMI
`
`to put
`
`on its
`
`case,
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`recognized
`
`a waiver
`
`"in
`
`a very
`
`limited
`
`way
`
`for
`
`this
`
`case."
`
`Sorkin
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex.
`
`B 13:10-13
`
`(emphasis
`
`added).
`
`LAC did
`
`not
`
`voluntarily
`
`waive
`
`its privilege.
`
`Nor
`
`could
`
`GPMI's
`
`use
`
`of privileged
`
`documents
`
`waive
`
`the privilege
`
`because
`
`it was
`
`jointly
`
`held
`
`with
`
`LAC.
`
`See
`
`Restatement
`
`of
`
`must
`
`agree
`
`to waive
`
`(Third)
`
`the
`
`Law
`
`Governing
`
`Lawyers
`
`§ 75 (2000)
`
`(co-clients
`
`privilege).
`
`GPMI's
`
`use
`
`of privileged
`
`materials
`
`in the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`was
`
`thus
`
`fundamentally
`
`different
`
`from
`
`cases
`
`in which
`
`parties
`
`voluntarily
`
`disclosed
`
`privileged
`
`materials
`
`and
`
`then
`
`later
`
`sought
`
`to use
`
`the privilege
`
`as a shield.
`
`See Bowne
`
`of New York City,
`
`Inc.
`
`v.
`
`AmBase
`
`Corp.,
`
`150 F.R.D.
`
`465,
`
`479
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`1993)
`
`(party
`
`"chose,
`
`for
`
`its own
`
`tactical
`
`reasons,
`
`to waive
`
`the
`
`privilege"
`
`in a prior
`
`Urban
`
`Box Office
`
`Network,
`
`Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Interfase
`
`proceeding);
`
`Managers,
`
`L.R,
`
`No.
`
`01CIV.8854(LTS)(THK),
`
`2004 WL 2375819,
`
`at
`
`*5
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`Oct.
`
`21,
`
`2004)
`
`(defendants
`
`were
`
`bound
`
`by having
`
`waived
`
`the privilege
`
`in a prior
`
`proceeding
`
`by
`
`raising
`
`an
`
`advice-of-counsel
`
`defense);
`
`see also
`
`Certain
`
`Underwriters
`
`at Lloyd's,
`
`London
`
`v. Nat'l
`
`R.R.
`
`Passenger
`
`Corp.,
`
`218
`
`F. Supp.
`
`3d
`
`197,
`
`202
`
`(E.D.N.Y.
`
`2016)
`
`(party
`
`waived
`
`attorney-client
`
`privilege
`
`over
`
`certain
`
`documents
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`to seek
`
`to preclude
`
`their
`
`introduction
`
`and
`
`use
`
`at
`
`6
`
`9 of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`/2020
`01/08
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`deposition);
`
`United
`
`States
`
`v. Wells
`
`Fargo
`
`Bank,
`
`N.A.,
`
`No.
`
`12-CV-7527
`
`(JMF),
`
`2015 WL
`
`5051679,
`
`at
`
`*4
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`Aug.
`
`26,
`
`2015)
`
`(party
`
`waived
`
`privilege
`
`where
`
`it did
`
`not
`
`object
`
`to the
`
`use
`
`of privileged
`
`documents
`
`in a deposition);
`
`In re Initial
`
`Pub.
`
`Offering
`
`Sec.
`
`Litig.,
`
`249
`
`F.R.D.
`
`457,
`
`466
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`2008)
`
`(company
`
`waived
`
`privilege
`
`by
`
`voluntarily
`
`disclosing
`
`documents
`
`to
`
`adversaries
`
`the U.S.
`
`Attorney's
`
`Office
`
`and
`
`the SEC).
`
`By
`
`contrast,
`
`LAC worked
`
`with
`
`the parties
`
`Court
`
`so that GPMI-
`
`and
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`to restrict
`
`access
`
`to privileged
`
`testimony
`
`and materials
`
`not
`
`LAC-could
`
`prosecute
`
`its
`
`claims.
`
`See Urban
`
`Box Office
`
`Network,
`
`Inc.,
`
`2004 WL 2375819,
`
`at
`
`*3
`
`("A
`
`party
`
`which
`
`seeks
`
`to uphold
`
`the privilege
`
`must
`
`take
`
`affirmative
`
`measures
`
`to maintain
`
`the
`
`confidentiality
`
`of attorney-client
`
`communications.").
`
`Second,
`
`LAC and GPMI
`
`took
`
`reasonable
`
`steps
`
`to preserve
`
`the privilege
`
`by working
`
`with
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court
`
`to establish
`
`sealing
`
`procedures,
`
`complying
`
`with
`
`the Bankruptcy
`
`Court's
`
`procedures,
`
`and working
`
`with
`
`the parties
`
`to stipulate
`
`to the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Newspaper
`
`McGovern
`
`300 A.D.2d
`
`172
`
`Order.
`
`C.f
`
`N.Y
`
`Times
`
`Div.
`
`v. Lehrer
`
`Bovis,
`
`Inc.,
`
`169,
`
`(1st Dept.
`
`2002)
`
`(to
`
`avoid
`
`waiver,
`
`party
`
`asserting
`
`the privilege
`
`must
`
`show
`
`"reasonable
`
`steps were
`
`taken
`
`to prevent
`
`disclosure").
`
`When
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`approached
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`of
`
`legal
`
`advice
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`2009
`
`Restructuring,
`
`Judge
`
`Chapman
`
`paused
`
`to explain
`
`the
`
`sealing
`
`process,
`
`and
`
`to clear
`
`the
`
`courtroom
`
`of any
`
`party
`
`not
`
`subject
`
`to the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order.
`
`Sorkin
`
`Ex. B 10:18-11:13.
`
`Consistent
`
`with
`
`Federal
`
`Rule
`
`of Evidence
`
`Aff.,
`
`502(d),
`
`which
`
`permits
`
`a federal
`
`court
`
`to "order
`
`that
`
`the privilege
`
`disclosure
`
`connected
`
`with
`
`the
`
`litigation
`
`pending
`
`before
`
`the
`
`court
`
`or protection
`-
`
`in which
`
`is not waived
`
`by
`
`event
`
`the
`
`disclosure
`
`is also
`
`not
`
`a waiver
`
`in any
`
`other
`
`federal
`
`or state
`
`proceeding,"
`
`Judge
`
`Chapman
`
`explained:
`
`"These
`
`are documents
`
`that
`
`are subject
`
`to an .
`
`.
`
`. assertion
`
`of attorney/client
`
`privilege
`
`that
`
`has been
`
`waived
`
`in a very
`
`limited
`
`way
`
`for
`
`this
`
`case."
`
`Sorkin
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex. B 13:10-13
`
`(emphasis
`
`added).
`
`7
`
`10
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`Except
`
`for
`
`testimony
`
`by
`
`third
`
`parties
`
`like
`
`experts,
`
`Judge
`
`Chapman
`
`sealed
`
`the
`
`courtroom
`
`for
`
`all
`
`or
`
`part
`
`of
`
`14 days
`
`of
`
`the
`
`17-day
`
`trial
`
`to ensure
`
`that
`
`the
`
`privilege
`
`would
`
`remain
`
`intact.
`
`See Sorkin
`
`Aff.
`
`¶ 10.
`
`The
`
`presence
`
`of Getty's
`
`counsel
`
`during
`
`sealed
`
`testimony
`
`and
`
`their
`
`receipt
`
`of privileged
`
`materials
`
`was
`
`subject
`
`to Judge
`
`Chapman's
`
`sealing
`
`instructions
`
`and
`
`the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order,
`
`which
`
`limited
`
`disclosure
`
`from
`
`a waiver
`
`as to a subsequent
`
`proceeding
`
`effecting
`
`such
`
`as this
`
`one.
`
`Indeed,
`
`after
`
`seven
`
`days
`
`of
`
`trial
`
`in which
`
`the
`
`courtroom
`
`was
`
`sealed
`
`for
`
`privileged
`
`testimony
`
`as-needed,
`
`Judge
`
`Chapman
`
`imposed
`
`additional
`
`procedures
`
`to further
`
`protect
`
`and
`
`clarify
`
`the
`
`contours
`
`of
`
`the privilege.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`Sorkin
`
`Aff,
`
`Ex. C 5:18-6:6
`
`(requiring
`
`the parties
`
`to submit
`
`a notice
`
`advising
`
`that
`
`the
`
`next
`
`day
`
`of
`
`the
`
`hearing
`
`would
`
`require
`
`sealing
`
`under
`
`the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order);
`
`Sorkin
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex. D (example
`
`notice).
`
`ARE ESTOPPED
`
`PRIVILEGE
`
`WAS
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`WAIVED
`
`FROM ARGUING
`
`In reliance
`
`on Getty's
`
`promise
`
`not
`
`to use privileged
`
`materials
`
`from
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`beyond
`
`the
`
`confines
`
`of
`
`that
`
`case, GPMI
`
`and LAC permitted
`
`Getty's
`
`counsel
`
`access
`
`to
`
`privileged
`
`exhibits
`
`and
`
`testimony.
`
`Getty
`
`is estopped
`
`from
`
`arguing
`
`here
`
`that
`
`such
`
`disclosures
`
`waived
`
`the privilege.
`
`Generally,
`
`"'estoppel'
`
`is a bar which
`
`precludes
`
`a party
`
`from
`
`denying
`
`a certain
`
`fact
`
`or state
`
`of
`
`facts
`
`exists
`
`to the
`
`detriment
`
`of another
`
`party
`
`who
`
`was
`
`entitled
`
`to rely
`
`on such
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`had
`
`."
`
`87
`
`acted
`
`accordingly
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`McManus
`
`v. Bd.
`
`of Educ.
`
`of Hempstead
`
`Union
`
`Free
`
`Sch. Dist.,
`
`N.Y.2d
`
`183,
`
`186-87
`
`(1995).
`
`A party
`
`may
`
`not
`
`"mislead
`
`an opponent
`
`and
`
`then
`
`claim
`
`the
`
`benefit
`
`of
`
`deception."
`
`his
`
`Triple
`
`Cities
`
`Constr.
`
`Co.
`
`v. Maryland
`
`Cas.
`
`Co.,
`
`4 N.Y.2d
`
`443,
`
`448
`
`(1958)
`
`(citation
`
`omitted).
`
`Promissory
`
`estoppel
`
`is established
`
`where
`
`there
`
`is "(1)
`
`a clear
`
`and
`
`unambiguous
`
`promise,
`
`(2)
`
`reasonable
`
`and
`
`foreseeable
`
`reliance
`
`by
`
`the person
`
`to whom the
`
`8
`
`11
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`06:
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`promise
`
`is made
`
`and
`
`(3)
`
`injury
`
`as a result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`reliance."
`
`80 Nassau
`
`Assocs.
`
`v. Crossland
`
`Fed.
`
`Sav. Bank
`
`(In
`
`re 80 Nassau
`
`Assocs.),
`
`169 B.R.
`
`832,
`
`842
`
`(Bankr.
`
`S.D.N.Y.
`
`1994).
`
`Production
`
`here
`
`of
`
`the privileged
`
`materials
`
`shared
`
`with
`
`Getty
`
`during
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`in reliance
`
`on Getty's
`
`promise
`
`to abide
`
`by
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order
`
`would
`
`result
`
`in severe
`
`to Defendants,
`
`destroying
`
`what
`
`has been
`
`called
`
`a "sacred
`
`trust
`
`of
`
`injury
`
`confidentiality."
`
`Matter
`
`of Grand
`
`Jury
`
`Investigation,
`
`175 Misc.
`
`2d 398,
`
`406
`
`(Onondaga
`
`County
`
`Ct.
`
`1998)
`
`(citation
`
`omitted).
`
`In spite
`
`of
`
`the
`
`elaborate
`
`sealing
`
`procedures
`
`and Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order
`
`in
`
`place
`
`for
`
`the
`
`duration
`
`of
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`now
`
`argue
`
`the
`
`privilege
`
`was
`
`in fact,
`
`waived
`
`during
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`and
`
`on that
`
`basis,
`
`seek
`
`to use
`
`the
`
`documents
`
`from
`
`that
`
`case
`
`in this
`
`litigation.
`
`However,
`
`by
`
`signing
`
`the Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order,
`
`Getty
`
`promised
`
`to use
`
`the privileged
`
`documents
`
`and
`
`testimony
`
`received
`
`in the
`
`course
`
`of
`
`the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`"only
`
`for
`
`purposes
`
`related
`
`to the Adversary
`
`Proceedings
`
`and
`
`not
`
`for
`
`any
`
`commercial,
`
`business,
`
`competitive
`
`or other
`
`purpose."
`
`Sorkin
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex. A¶
`
`1. Getty
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be permitted
`
`to agree
`
`to a limited
`
`use
`
`of privileged
`
`materials
`
`in order
`
`to gain
`
`access
`
`to the materials
`
`in one
`
`court,
`
`to return
`
`a decade
`
`later
`
`seeking
`
`to use
`
`those
`
`only
`
`same
`
`privileged
`
`materials
`
`in another
`
`court
`
`because
`
`the materials
`
`were
`
`disclosed
`
`in the prior
`
`proceeding.
`
`GPMI
`
`and LAC only
`
`granted
`
`Getty
`
`access
`
`to the materials
`
`in the
`
`first
`
`instance
`
`because
`
`they
`
`agreed
`
`to abide
`
`by
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`the prevailing
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding
`
`Protective
`
`Order.
`
`Defendants
`
`should
`
`not
`
`suffer
`
`the
`
`irreversible
`
`injury
`
`of
`
`losing
`
`the protections
`
`of
`
`the
`
`attorney-client
`
`privilege
`
`because
`
`LAC relied
`
`on Getty's
`
`promises
`
`in the GPMI
`
`Adversary
`
`Proceeding.
`
`9
`
`12
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`reasons,
`
`Defendants
`
`respectfully
`
`request
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`reconsider
`
`this
`
`privilege
`
`dispute,
`
`and
`
`issue
`
`a Protective
`
`Order
`
`substantially
`
`in the
`
`form
`
`of
`
`the
`
`attached
`
`Proposed
`
`Order,
`
`preventing
`
`disclosure
`
`of privileged
`
`materials
`
`and
`
`staying
`
`discovery
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`the
`
`December
`
`23 Order
`
`pending
`
`the Court's
`
`final
`
`Order
`
`on this
`
`issue.
`
`To the
`
`extent
`
`the Court
`
`denies
`
`this Motion
`
`for
`
`a Protective
`
`Order,
`
`Defendants
`
`believe
`
`such
`
`an Order
`
`would
`
`be appealable,
`
`and
`
`would
`
`ask
`
`that
`
`production
`
`of privileged
`
`materials
`
`and
`
`disclosure
`
`pursuant
`
`to the December
`
`23
`
`Order
`
`be stayed
`
`pending
`
`an appeal
`
`of
`
`that
`
`final
`
`Order.
`
`Dated:
`
`8, 2020
`January
`New York
`New York,
`
`AKIN
`
`GUMP STRAUSS
`
`HAUER
`
`& FELD
`
`LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/
`
`Joseph
`
`L. Sorkin
`
`Qureshi
`Abid
`L. Sorkin
`Joseph
`M. Evans
`Anne
`Roseman
`Daniella
`Park
`Bryant
`One
`New York
`New York,
`872-1000
`(212)
`872-1002
`(facsimile)
`(212)
`for
`Counsel
`Defendants
`
`10036
`
`10
`
`13
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: NEW YORK
`01/08/2020
`(FILED
`0 6 : 03
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2020 07:19 PM
`PM)
`NYSCEF
`91
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 118
`
`INDEX
`151772/2016
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 151772/2016
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`01/08/2020
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2020
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`OF COMPLIANCE
`
`WITH
`
`COMMERCIAL
`
`DIVISION
`
`RULE
`
`17
`
`Pursuant
`
`to Commercial
`
`Division
`
`Rule
`
`17, Defendants
`
`certify
`
`that
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`Memorandum
`
`of Law
`
`in Support
`
`of Defendant
`
`Lukoil
`
`Americas
`
`Corporation,
`
`Vincent
`
`DeLaurentis,
`
`and Vadim
`
`Gluzman's
`
`Motion
`
`for
`
`a Protective
`
`Order
`
`was
`
`prepared
`
`using
`
`the word-
`
`processing
`
`system
`
`Microsoft
`
`Word,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`the
`
`total
`
`number
`
`of words
`
`in the Memorandum,
`
`exclusive
`
`of
`
`the
`
`caption,
`
`table
`
`of
`
`contents,
`
`table
`
`of authorities,
`
`signature
`
`block,
`
`and
`
`this
`
`Certification
`
`of Compliance,
`
`is under
`
`7,000
`
`words.
`
`By:
`
`/s/
`
`Daniella
`
`Roseman
`
`Daniella
`
`Roseman
`
`11
`
`14
`
`of
`
`14
`
`