A legal battle is being waged in a court in New York between lawyers for and against Grenada Deputy Prime Minister, Gregory Bowen now locked in a bribery allegation charge brought against him by U.S oil investor, Jack Grynberg.
According to well-placed sources, lawyers for Bowen are trying to oppose a submission made by Grynberg and his lawyers to subpoena Grenada's representative in Up-State New York, Michael Melnick to give certain testimonial evidence against the Number Two man in St. George's.
Grynberg is said to have received information allegedly supplied by Melnick on discussions about certain business transactions with Bowen.
The American has sued the senior government minister and three Russians for US$500 million over an oil and gas agreement that went sour with the Grenada government.
Grynberg is accusing his opponents of conspiring to prevent him from cashing in on the deal.
GRENADA TODAY was able to obtain court documents from the New York court about the battle being waged by Bowen's team of lawyers, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to block Melnick from giving certain evidence.
Following is an edited version of a court document filed on May 4, 2007 by the lawyers on behalf of Minister Bowen:
PLAINTIFFS PERSIST IN FAILING TO MAKE A SHOWING
THAT PERSONAL JURISDICTION EXISTS OVER BOWEN
Plaintiffs (Jack Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation) do not dispute our contention that courts display an unwillingness to grant jurisdictional discovery where plaintiffs fail to make out a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction over the defendant exists.
Nor do plaintiffs dispute that their allegations in the complaint are inadequate to do the job.
Instead, plaintiffs try to remedy this defect in their complaint by an affidavit from plaintiff Jack Grynberg to supplement the basis for personal jurisdiction over Bowen.
However, the only new allegations recited by Jack Grynberg that bear on Bowen's contacts with New York are that:
(I) Bowen allegedly met in New York with other defendants regarding "their participation in oil exploration and development" of resources in Grenada's offshore waters - an allegation that will be proven false, and
(ii) Bowen allegedly "has also come to New York to discuss commercial real estate" with someone named Jack Rosen - another allegation that will be proven false.
Plaintiffs wrongly contented that these two new allegations show that Bowen conducted "substantial, continuous business in New York" and therefore subject him to statutory jurisdiction in New York.
The two new allegations, even when added to the single allegation in the complaint as to Bowen's contact with New York (that he was in New York "for several days" in 2006, do not amount to the sort of "continuous and systematic" presence in New York that has been found to support personal jurisdiction under 301.
Thus, even if Grynberg's affidavit is added to the mix, it remains the case that plaintiffs have failed to plead a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction and that, therefore, the Court should not grant jurisdictional discovery.
PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY REGARDING BOWEN'S SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
Even if the Court permits Michael Melnick's deposition, the Court should impose clear limits on it.
Plaintiffs' own opposition papers make clear that they intend to exceed the very limits that they requested and that the Court had provisionally contemplated by Order dated April 9.
At the hearing on April 6, plaintiffs' counsel sought the Court's permission to obtain discovery from Mr. Melnick specifically as to the Court's personal jurisdiction over Gregory Bowen.
By Order dated April 9, 2007, the Court ordered that "the plaintiff shall serve the proposed deponent on the issue of this court's personal jurisdiction over Bowen" and then set a briefing schedule for objections to that proposed deposition.
Blatantly choosing to ignore this order, plaintiffs' counsel e-mailed counsel for Bowen on April 26, stating that plaintiffs intend to exceed those limits, and depose Mr. Melnick not only on personal jurisdiction but also as to sovereign immunity, as well as any "issues raised in the anticipated motion to dismiss".
Plaintiffs opposition papers to our motion for a protective order make clear that plaintiffs intend to follow through on their expressed intention to extend discovery beyond matters of personal jurisdiction over Bowen.
Notwithstanding that the parties have neither held a Rule 26(f) conference nor stipulated that discovery be permitted, and notwithstanding the absence of an unlimited warrant for discovery from the Court, plaintiffs have declared an intent to seek discovery of Mr. Melnick on May 17 on any subject of their choosing.
Because plaintiffs have arrogated to themselves authority that rightly belongs to this Court, have misrepresented to the Court what the scope of their discovery would be and have made differing representation to this Court and to defendant Bowen, plaintiffs should not be permitted to take discovery on the issue of sovereign immunity or any other subject beyond the scope that they requested and the Court permitted on April 9.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth both above and in Minister Bowen's opening papers on this motion, Minister Bowen respectfully requests that the Court enter an order:
* denying plaintiffs the opportunity to oppose Michael Melnick prior to the Rule 26(f) conference or in the alternative,
* Limiting the discovery (both physical and testimonial) that plaintiffs are permitted to take from Mr. Melnick to matters related to personal jurisdiction only; permitting the parties to instruct Mr. Melnick not to answer questions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d) (l) to enforce this limitation, and ordering plaintiffs not to make use of any evidence received from Mr. Melnick other than to answer a motion to dismiss by defendant Bowen on grounds of personal jurisdiction, unless permitted by the Court.
Dated May 4, 2007
New York, New York
