In re: Ernesto Andrade Group

OPINION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND Ernesto Andrade Group (“EAG”) applies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 for an order authorizing EAG to issue and serve subpoenas duces tecum on nine banks and The Clearing House Payment Company, LLC (“TCH”) (collectively, “respondents”).¹ EAG intends to use the evidence called for by the subpoenas to make claims in a pending civil proceeding in the 3rd Central Civil Court of the Judicial District of São Paulo of Brazil. See Mem. at 1, 4. In that proceeding, EAG seeks repayment of approximately $7,680,184.94 from an individual named Nelson Nogueira Pinheiro on the basis that he “fraudulently dissipated, misappropriated, assigned, or concealed the assets of the various entities he controls, and took significant steps in order to organize their insolvency and evade his obligation to pay debts owed to [EAG].” Id. at 2. EAG seeks discovery “relating to wire transfers routed through Respondents in New York City and documents relating thereto.” Id. EAG notes that the subpoenas seek “the same” discovery that was sought by and granted to another entity in a section 1782 application in In re Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A., 2022 WL 1546663 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2022). See Mem. at 1; Nogueira Decl. 31. II. DISCUSSION “In ruling on an application made pursuant to section 1782, a district court must first consider the statutory requirements and then use its discretion in balancing a number of factors.” Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76, 80 (2d Cir. 2012). As a threshold matter, an application for discovery under section 1782 must meet the following requirements: “(1) the person from whom discovery is sought resides (or is found) in the district of the district court to which the application is made, (2) the discovery is for use in a foreign proceeding before a foreign tribunal, and (3) the application is made by a foreign or international tribunal or any interested person.” Id.; accord 28 U.S.C. §1782(a). Here, each of section 1782(a)’s requirements are met. Accord In re Inv. Bank PSC, 567 F. Supp. 3d 449, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). EAG provided evidence that the nine banks and TCH maintain offices and do business within the Southern District of New York. See Mannheimer Decl.