United States District Court, D. Delaware
IN RE RENEWED APPLICATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 FOR DISCOVERY FROM GLASSTECH INC., ET AL.
HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Wilmington this 6th day of September
reviewed the parties' most recent joint status report
(D.I. 47), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the remaining disputes
identified therein are resolved as follows:
Section II: Ms. Freund may petition the Court in the
future for additional documents or information, but such
petition will be denied unless she can establish, by clear
and convincing evidence, that (A) a need for additional
information has been triggered because (B)(i) new issues or
circumstances have arisen or (ii) new information has been
discovered. These provisions balance Glasstech's
interests in finality and the Court's interests in not
having to expend unnecessary additional resources on the
parties' disputes with Ms. Freund's interest in
obtaining additional documents in the event that something
unforeseen occurs. Glasstech may object to and oppose any
such requests for documents or information.
Section III: Mr. Freund shall have access to and may
receive the final Valuation figure or range provided by the
Firm and any documents Glasstech produces to Ms. Freund. The
Court is not persuaded by Ms. Freund's objections to Mr.
Freund receiving such information. The point of the Valuation
- and this now-lengthy litigation - has been to determine the
value of certain property of Mr. Freund's and of the
marital estate generally, and Mr. Freund should be permitted
access to evidence that may be used against him. The Court
will not require Mr. Freund to bear any of the costs of the
Valuation. He was willing to proceed on the basis of the
already-completed Houlihan Lokey valuation, which would have
led to no party incurring any additional costs. It was Ms.
Freund's decision to seek the new Valuation.
Freund's right to access the final Valuation figure or
range provided by the Firm and any documents Glasstech
produces to Ms. Freund, and Mr. Freund's right to seek
additional information from Glasstech, are limited to the
same extent as Ms. Freund's rights in these regards.
Glasstech may object to and oppose any such requests for
documents or information. Mr. Freund may retain counsel in
addition to U.S. counsel who had entered an appearance by
June 27, 2019, all of whom will be required to comply with
all of the limitations of this Order and any other Order of
Section IV.B: the production of any documents or
information directly to Ms. Freund is conditioned on the
entry of a protective order in the Rabbinical Court. Without
such an order, this Court may lack the ability to
meaningfully sanction Ms. Freund even if her future conduct
were to warrant it. Mr. Freund has sought a protective order
since the beginning of this case and Ms. Freund has
previously seemed agreeable to it. In the event Mr. Freund
does not cooperate with submission of a reasonable proposed
order, or if the Rabbinical Court chooses to not enter a
protective order (which is its decision to make), Ms. Freund
may seek further relief in this Court.
Footnote 2: the Firm will be retained jointly by Ms.
Freund and Glasstech. Glasstech needs to be a party to the
agreement so that it can directly enforce its contractual
benefits, including its confidentiality obligations. The
Court is not persuaded by Ms. Freund's suspicions that
Glasstech will improperly attempt to influence the Firm.
Footnote 3: Ms. Freund will be provided a single
pre-engagement opportunity "to have a conversation with
the Firm about the purpose of the Valuation, the parties (and
related parties) involved, and the importance of the Firm
performing its own independent Valuation." Such
discussion may prove helpful in providing context to the
Firm. Glasstech's alternate proposal that a joint written
statement be provided to the Firm is less likely to be
productive given the near-certainty of disputes arising in
the drafting of such a document, requiring additional
judicial involvement and consequent delay.
Footnote 5: one of Mr. Engel's partners may file
a motion for pro hac vice admission in this case.
Such attorney will be subject to the same restrictions set
forth in the Proposal and any Orders of the Court, including
the instant Order. It is reasonable and appropriate for Ms.
Freund to have the assistance of an attorney who has more
familiarity with the financial documents that will be
produced in this case. Given the restrictions on such
attorney, this accommodation to Ms. Freund's interests
does not significantly increase the risk to Glasstech or any
Footnote 7: the applicable law is limited to U.S.
law. If Ms. Freund is somehow obligated to produce
information under Israeli law (other than by the Rabbinical
Court for which an exception has already been made), she may
petition this Court with respect to such obligation.
reviewed the letters relating to disputes between Ms. Freund
and Balfour Green regarding the terms of a protective order
(see D.I. 50-52), IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Court will enter Balfour
Green's proposed version of the protective order
(see D.I. 50-1). On the whole, Balfour Green's
proposal is more reasonable than Ms. Freund's proposal.
It is appropriate under the circumstances here that all
non-public documents produced be maintained as confidential
and used solely for the purpose identified in Ms.
Freund's Application. See 28 U.S.C. §
1782(a) (providing district courts authority to order persons
residing in their districts "to produce a document or
other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or
IS FURTHER ORDERED that all agreed-upon portions of
the Proposal set out in the joint status report are
ADOPTED and shall govern going forward until
further Order of the Court. The parties shall, no later than
September 13, submit any additional Order
they request the Court to enter to implement the various
agreements reached and rulings entered by the Court
throughout this case.
Order has been issued under seal, the parties shall meet and
confer and, no later than September 9,
submit a proposed redacted version of it. Thereafter, ...