Summary

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic's ("Lao PDR") motion for jurisdictional discovery. See Pl.'s Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc., Aug. 5, 2021, ECF No. 120 ("Pl. Mot."); see also Am. Memo. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc., Aug. 5, 2021, ECF No. 123 ("Rev. Pl. Br."). Lao PDR requests discovery of six categories of documents and a non-party deposition, which it claims will establish (1) specific jurisdiction over Defendants John K. Baldwin ("Baldwin") and Bridge Capital, LLC ("Bridge"); (2) quasi in rem jurisdiction over Baldwin and Bridge; and (3) Baldwin's status as the alter ego of non-parties Sanum Investments Limited, a Macau limited company ("Sanum") and Lao Holdings, N.V., a public limited company incorporated in Aruba ("LHNV").[1] See Decl. of Robert K. Kry, Ex. C, Aug. 5, 2021, ECF No. 120-2 ("Discovery Demands"). Defendants Baldwin and Bridge oppose the motion on the grounds that (i) the proposed discovery could not lead to any facts that would establish specific jurisdiction; (ii) Lao PDR cannot establish quasi in rem jurisdiction as a matter of law; (iii) non-party discovery is irrelevant to Lao PDR's jurisdictional claims over Baldwin and Bridge; and (iv) Lao PDR's requests are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. See generally Resp. to [Pl. Mot.], Sept. 21, 2021, ECF No. 128 ("Def. Br."). For the following reasons, Lao PDR's motion is granted in part and denied in part.[2]

...