Walter Tzvi Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors.

Walter Tzvi Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors.

The English court will not restrain a defendant's lawful evidence gathering in foreign jurisdictions unless the conduct is unconscionable, abusive, or vexatious; the breadth and propriety of the US court's order are matters for the US court, and the facts did not justify injunctive relief.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Walter Tzvi Soriano; Defendant/respondent: Forensic News LLC; Defendant/respondent: Scott Stedman; Defendant: Eric Levai
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted on grounds 1, 3, 4, and 5, but appeal dismissed on all grounds.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Evidence Gathering, Section 1782 Applications, Disclosure, Costs, Libel Tourism
Defamation Civil Procedure International Judicial Assistance Anti Suit Injunctions Evidence Gathering Section 1782 Applications Disclosure Costs +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Tzvi Soriano

Claimant/appellant

Forensic News LLC

Defendant/respondent

Scott Stedman

Defendant/respondent

Eric Levai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' US evidence gathering application under 28 USC §1782 was abusive, vexatious, or unconscionable
  2. 2 Whether the application circumvented English disclosure rules
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' actions interfered with due process in the English court

Ratio Decidendi

The English court will not restrain a defendant's lawful evidence gathering in foreign jurisdictions unless the conduct is unconscionable, abusive, or vexatious; the breadth and propriety of the US court's order are matters for the US court, and the facts did not justify injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted on grounds 1, 3, 4, and 5, but appeal dismissed on all grounds.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on abusive, costs, due process, and helpful instructions grounds.
  • Appeal dismissed; no injunction granted against the defendants' 1782 application.