NML (Elliott) in Nevada auf der Jagd nach Argygeldern....

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT..................................................................................................... 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY....................................................... 3
I. The Alleged Báez Embezzlement Scheme ............................................................. 3
II. NML’s Previous Efforts To Obtain Discovery Relating To The Báez
Scheme. .................................................................................................................. 5
A. NML’s August 13, 2013 Subpoena To MF Nevada And MF
Nevada’s Document Production. ................................................................ 5
B. NML’s Subpoena To The Báez Entities And The Court’s Order
Granting NML’s Motion To Compel. ........................................................ 5
C. NML’s Subpoena to Patricia Amunategui .................................................. 7
D. The Subpoena At Issue.............................................................................. 10
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 11
I. NML Is Entitled To Discover Information That May Lead To Assets
Embezzled Through The Báez Entities................................................................ 11
A. The Legal Standard Under Rule 69(a)(2).................................................. 11
B. Post-Judgment Discovery Is Warranted As Long As The Judgment
Creditor Can Make A Threshold Showing That Connects The Third
Party With Discoverable Information ....................................................... 12
C. The Discovery Sought Through The Subpoena Is Directly Relevant
To NML’s Judgment Enforcement Efforts. .............................................. 12
D. Complying With The Subpoena Will Not Unduly Burden Mossack
Fonseca Or MF Nevada. .......................................................................... 13
E. The Unsupported Assertion That The Mossack Subpoena Seeks
“Personal And Confidential Material” Is Unavailing ............................... 14
II. The Subpoena Is Enforceable Against Mossack Fonseca..................................... 15
A. MF Nevada Is The Alter Ego of Mossack Fonseca .................................. 16
B. MF Nevada Is A Mere Department of Mossack Fonseca......................... 17
C. The Court Should Conduct An Evidentiary Hearing If It Finds Ms.
Amunategui’s Testimony to be Inconclusive. .......................................... 19
III. NML Was Not Required To Seek Discovery Through The Inter-American
Convention On Letters Rogatory .......................................................................... 19
IV. This Court Can Compel Mossack Fonseca To Designate A Person Within
the Court’s Jurisdiction To Appear For Deposition. ............................................ 20
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 22

http://factcheckargentina.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/11-7-NMLs-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Quash.pdf