Examples of Starwood Entities in a sentence
Guarantor and the Intermediate Starwood Entities shall not enter into any amendment, supplement or modification to any Interest Rate Protection Agreement without the prior written consent of Buyer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.
Intel Factor Turning to the third Intel factor, the Starwood Entities argue “that resorting immediately to Section 1782 demonstrates that Petrus was attempting to circumvent the Austrian proof- gathering restrictions.” ECF No. [25] at 23.
The Court agrees with the Starwood Entities that it is somewhat relevant that Petrus did not first seek discovery of the information at issue in the Austrian proceedings.
They sought to file “substantially identical discovery requests” on all seven Starwood Entities, with the intention that “the recipients will identify the relevant deponents,” allowing Petrus to excuse the other entities from discovery obligations.
The Corporate RepresentativeSubpoenas seek deposition testimony and records from the seven (7) Starwood Entities in connection with their corporate operations and interaction with CA Immobilien.
In one, for example, the Starwood Entities assert that the R&R “also erred in concluding that the first and third Section 1782 criteria are met here and that Intel Factor 1 does not weigh against having granted the Ex Parte Application.” ECF No. [25] at 9 n.5. Such conclusory assertions fail to “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with,” Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1360, and are devoid of “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla.
The Starwood Entities first contend that Petrus Fund, as Petitioner, is not an “interested person” because its “legal standing in the Austrian [p]roceedings is in question, and the Austrian Court has not yet decided the issue.” See Motion [D.E. 6 at 11].
However, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that there is no “exhaustion requirement” in Section 1782, ECF No. [24] at 10 (quotation marks omitted), and it appears likely that the requested discovery of the Starwood Entities is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Austrian court.
In their original Motion, the Starwood Entities argued in the alternative that Petrus’s subpoenas should be quashed for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ECF No. [24] at 11.In their Objections, the Starwood Entities first complain that Magistrate Judge Otazo- Reyes failed to squarely address their argument that the tribunal and nature of the Austrian proceedings do not support the requested discovery.