UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: 

IN RE APPLICATION OF 

NOVOSHIP (UK) LIMITED, 

 

 Applicant, 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Judicial 

Assistance in Obtaining Evidence for Use in 

Foreign and International Proceedings. 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––/ 

EX PARTE PETITION OF NOVOSHIP (UK) LIMITED FOR JUDICIAL 

ASSISTANCE IN AID OF A FOREIGN PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 

Novoship (UK) Limited (“Novoship”) respectfully submits this Ex Parte Petition for 

Judicial Assistance in Aid of a Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain 

documentary and testimonial evidence for use in a foreign proceeding (the “Petition”). In 

support of this Petition, Novoship states as follows: 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

1. The facts relevant to this Petition are set forth below and in the accompanying 

Declaration of Stephen Kirkpatrick (“Declaration”), attached as Exhibit A. The facts stated in 

the Declaration are incorporated herein by reference and provide a much more detailed factual 

background than the summary that follows below. 

2. Novoship seeks assistance from this Court to obtain documentary and testimonial 

evidence from seven discovery targets found in this District, namely: Harry Sargeant Jr., Harry 

Sargeant III, Daniel Sargeant, James Sargeant, Sargeant Marine Inc., International Oil Trading 

Company LLC, and Berger Singerman LLP (the “Discovery Targets”). Declaration ¶ 8. 

3. The purpose of the discovery sought is to aid Novoship in its defense in an onCase 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 1 of 12
2 

going legal proceeding being heard before the English High Court (Maroil Trading Inc & Others 

v. Cally Shipholdings Inc & Others, Claim No. CL-2018-000824) (the “Foreign Proceeding”). 

Id. ¶¶ 3-7. 

4. Novoship is an interested party in the Foreign Proceeding. It is being sued in the 

Foreign Proceeding for an alleged breach of a settlement agreement. Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 35-36. 

Novoship, as a judgment creditor, entered into the settlement agreement with various entities 

beneficially owned and controlled by Venezuelan businessman Wilmer Ruperti (“Mr. Ruperti”), 

who were the judgment debtors. Id. ¶¶ 10-15. The settlement agreement contained a 

confidentiality provision that prohibited the disclosure of certain documents pertaining to the 

judgment debtors to third parties. Id. ¶ 16. According to Mr. Ruperti, the settlement agreement 

was breached when some allegedly confidential documents (the “Confidential Documents,” as 

more particularly defined in the Declaration) were disclosed, albeit without authority to do so, to 

third parties by Novoship’s agents. Id. ¶¶ 14, 17-18, 27. Specifically, Novoship’s agents 

provided the Confidential Documents to Daniel Sargeant and his family-owned company, Latin 

American Investments Limited (“LAIL”), for their own purposes. Id. ¶¶ 13-14, 17-19, 27. 

5. As part of its defense in the Foreign Proceeding, Novoship argues (among other 

things) (1) that its agents caused the disclosure of the Confidential Documents to Daniel Sargeant 

and LAIL without Novoship’s authorization, knowledge or involvement, and (2) that the 

disclosure of the documents was justified, in any event, because it served the public benefit by 

uncovering fraudulent and unlawful activity perpetuated by Mr. Ruperti against LAIL. Id. ¶¶ 6, 

17-18, 20, 27, 28, 36-40. (The background of the actual disclosure of the documents to LAIL, as 

well as the background of the Ruperti-LAIL fraud, are described in the Declaration. Id. ¶¶ 17-

34.) 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 2 of 12
3 

6. Upon receipt of the Confidential Documents, LAIL formally sued Mr. Ruperti for 

breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, and for fraudulently concealing 

these breaches, in the English High Court (Latin American Investments Limited & Others v. 

Maroil Trading & Others, Claim No. CL-2017-000130); however, that case eventually settled 

and no judicial determination of the fraudulent or unlawful activity was entered. Id. ¶¶ 7, 28-30. 

Therefore, for Novoship to prevail on its public policy defense in the Foreign Proceeding, it must 

be clear that the disclosure of the Confidential Documents was justified under the circumstances 

and that fraudulent and unlawful activity existed. To that end, Novoship seeks third-party 

discovery from the Discovery Targets. Additionally, Novoship seeks discovery relevant to 

proving LAIL’s claim in full against the Foreign Claimants. 

7. Novoship proposes to serve the Discovery Targets with subpoenas in a form 

substantially similar to those attached hereto as Composite Exhibit B. The subpoenas seek 

documents as well as testimony. 

8. A Section 1782 petition typically is presented and granted ex parte in this District, 

to allow the applicant to serve the discovery requests. At that point, the discovery target can 

respond to the discovery, including raising any objections. See In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324, 

1329 (11th Cir. 2007) (describing the procedural history of the court’s granting of the ex parte

petition, the serving of request for deposition, and the deponent’s motion in opposition to the 

deposition for the court’s review). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1782 as this is an application for discovery seeking the production of documents and testimony 

located within this District by a party in a proceeding currently taking place before the English 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 3 of 12
4 

High Court for use in that foreign proceeding. 

10. Venue in this District is appropriate because the Discovery Targets are found in 

this District and the actual discovery sought also is located within this District. 

ARGUMENT

As detailed below, Novoship meets the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, as 

well as the discretionary factors discussed in the relevant case law. Novoship thus respectfully 

requests that this Petition for discovery be granted forthwith.

I. Standard for Granting Section 1782 Petition 

“Section 1782 is the product of congressional efforts, over the span of nearly 150 years, 

to provide federal-court assistance in gathering evidence for use in foreign tribunals.” Intel 

Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004). “Congress substantially 

broadened the scope of assistance federal courts could provide for foreign proceedings” pursuant 

to Section 1782 to include “documentary and other tangible evidence as well as testimony.” Id.

at 247-48. 

Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit repeatedly has recognized the liberal policy in favor of 

granting petitions for judicial assistance under Section 1782. See, e.g., Glock v. Glock, Inc., 797 

F.3d 1002, 1007 (11th Cir. 2015) (“The current embodiment of the [Section 1782] law reflects 

the policy choice to provide efficient means of assistance in our federal courts for litigants 

involved in international litigation and to prompt foreign courts to follow our generous example 

and provide similar assistance to our court systems.”) (quotations omitted); In re Application of 

Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 747 F.3d 

1262, 1269 (11th Cir. 2014) (“the history of Section 1782 reveals Congress’ wish 

to strengthen the power of district courts to respond to requests for international assistance”) 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 4 of 12
5 

(quotation omitted, emphasis in original); In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1333 (affirming order 

granting discovery under Section 1782 and citing Hans Smit, American Assistance to Litigation 

in Foreign and International Tribunal: Section 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S.C. Revisited, 25 

Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 1, 9 (1998) for the proposition that “[t]he purpose of Section 1782 is 

to liberalize the assistance given to foreign and international tribunals”). 

The statute reads, in pertinent part: 

(a) The district court of the district in which a person resides or is 

found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to 

produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a 

foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations 

conducted before formal accusation. The order may be made 

pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign 

or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested 

person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or 

the document or other thing be produced, before a person 

appointed by the court. By virtue of his appointment, the person 

appointed has power to administer any necessary oath and take the 

testimony or statement. The order may prescribe the practice and 

procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice and 

procedure of the foreign country or the international tribunal, for 

taking the testimony or statement or producing the document or 

other thing. To the extent that the order does not prescribe 

otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the 

document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. A person may not be compelled to give

his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing 

in violation of any legally applicable privilege. 

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) (2016). 

Courts have distilled Section 1782’s language into a two-part inquiry: first, whether a 

district court is authorized to grant relief under the statute, and second, whether the court should 

grant relief in its broad discretion. Consorcio, 747 F.3d at 1271. A district court is authorized to 

grant relief when the following four statutory requirements are met: (1) the person from whom 

discovery is sought must reside or be found in the district in which the petition is filed; (2) the 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 5 of 12
6 

request must seek evidence, whether it be the “testimony or statement” of a person or the 

production of “a document or other thing;” (3) the request must be made “by a foreign or 

international tribunal” or by “any interested person;” and (4) the evidence must be “for use in a 

proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 

1331-32. 

Once the district court has determined that it is authorized to grant relief, it is free to grant 

relief in its broad discretion. “In making its determination, district courts must exercise their 

discretion with an eye towards the statute’s goals, i.e., providing efficient means of assistance to 

participants in international litigation and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide 

similar means of assistance to our courts.” In re Application of N. Am. Potash, Inc., 12-20637-

CV, 2012 WL 12877816, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2012) (internal citation and quotation 

omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 12-20637, 2013 WL 12113190 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 

13, 2013); see In re Pimenta, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (citing the same “twin 

aims of the statute”). “As a general matter, these considerations counsel heavily in favor of 

generous federal court assistance.” N. Am. Potash, Inc., 2012 WL 12877816, at *5. 

The Supreme Court set forth various discretionary factors for courts’ consideration in 

Intel: 

(1) whether “the person from whom discovery is sought is a 

participant in the foreign proceeding,” because “nonparticipants in 

the foreign proceeding may be outside the foreign tribunal’s 

jurisdictional reach” and therefore their evidence may be 

“unobtainable absent § 1782(a) aid;” 

(2) “the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the 

proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign

government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court 

judicial assistance;” 

(3) “whether the § 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 6 of 12
7 

circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of 

a foreign country or the United States;” and 

(4) whether the § 1782(a) request is “unduly intrusive or 

burdensome.” 

542 U.S. at 264-65; Consorcio, 747 F.3d at 1272-73. 

II. Novoship’s Section 1782 Petition Meets the Statutory Requirements for Relief 

As shown below, all four statutory requirements for the granting of Section 1782 relief 

are satisfied here. 

A. The Type of Discovery Sought Is Permissible and Is Found in This District 

The first two statutory elements of Section 1782 are easily satisfied here. The type of 

discovery Novoship seeks—documentary and testimonial, as reflected in the subpoenas attached 

as Composite Exhibit B—is expressly permitted by the statute. Moreover, all of the Discovery 

Targets are found in this District. 

Courts have held that a company or person “resides or is found in” this District if it 

transacts business in this District or has an office here, or if it may otherwise be served with a 

subpoena in this District. See Consorcio, 747 F.3d at 1269 (it was undisputed that “JAS USA . . 

. has an office and does business in Miami and is therefore ‘found in the district of the district 

court ruling on the application for assistance’—namely, the Southern District of Florida.”); In re 

Emergency Ex Parte Application of Godfrey, 17-21631-CV, 2018 WL 1863749, at *8 (S.D. Fla. 

Feb. 22, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. In re Godfrey, 17-21631-CIV, 

2018 WL 1859344 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2018) (“tag jurisdiction” is sufficient to meet Section 

1782 element, relying on In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171, 180 (2d Cir. 2002), which holds “that if a 

person is served with a subpoena while physically present in the district . . . then for purposes of 

[Section] 1782(a), he is ‘found’ in that district”). 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 7 of 12
8 

There can be no debate that all of the Discovery Targets reside or are found in this 

District. The four individuals, Harry Sargeant Jr., Harry Sargeant III, Daniel Sargeant, and 

James Sargeant, have filed papers with Florida’s Department of State identifying personal 

addresses within this District. Moreover, Harry Sargeant III and Daniel Sargeant have submitted 

to this Court’s jurisdiction in recent litigation in this District related to the same underlying 

fraudulent and unlawful activity by Mr. Ruperti that is part of Novoship’s defense in the Foreign 

Proceeding. See Harry Sargeant III v. Maroil Trading Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-81070 (S.D. 

Fla. Sept. 25, 2017). In that case, the Second Amended Complaint alleged that both Harry 

Sargeant III and Daniel Sargeant reside in Palm Beach County, Florida, and Daniel Sargeant did 

not contest jurisdiction. See id. at DE 142. 

Turning to the three business entities, according to their registration with Florida’s 

Department of State, all three are located and conduct business in this District: Sargeant Marine 

Inc. (managed by Harry Sargeant Jr. and James Sargeant) maintains its principal office in 

Deerfield Beach; International Oil Trading Company LLC (managed by Harry Sargeant III) 

maintains its principal office in Delray Beach; and Berger Singerman maintains its principal 

office in Fort Lauderdale. 

B. The Discovery is for Use in a Foreign Proceeding by an “Interested Person” 

The next two statutory elements are also easily met: the discovery sought is for use in the 

Foreign Proceeding currently pending before the English High Court (see Declaration ¶¶ 3-8), 

and Novoship is, by definition, an “interested person” as a defendant in the Foreign Proceeding. 

See id. There is “[n]o doubt litigants are included among, and may be the most common 

example of, the ‘interested person[s]’ who may invoke [Section] 1782.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 256;

Consorcio, 747 F.3d at 1269 (it was undisputed that “[a]s a party to the dispute, [the Section 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 8 of 12
9 

1782 applicant] plainly is an ‘interested person’”). 

Novoship possesses a reasonable interest in obtaining judicial assistance from this Court 

to obtain discovery located in this District to help support its defenses in the Foreign Proceeding, 

namely, that it did not breach the settlement agreement by its agents providing the Confidential 

Documents to Daniel Sargeant and LAIL, and that, in any event, the provision of those 

documents was justified under the circumstances as it uncovered fraudulent and unlawful activity 

by Mr. Ruperti such that it benefited the public good and is therefore not actionable conduct. See

Declaration ¶¶ 6-7, 36-40. 

III. Novoship’s Section 1782 Petition Meets the Discretionary Factors for Relief 

As noted above, once this Court has determined that the statutory elements for relief 

under Section 1782 are met (they plainly are), it is free to grant discovery in its discretion. As 

set forth below, the discretionary factors set forth in Intel weigh in favor of granting this Petition. 

A. The Discovery Targets Are Not Participants in the Foreign Proceeding 

First, none of the Discovery Targets is a party to the Foreign Proceeding, nor is there any 

expectation that they may be joined as a party. See Declaration ¶ 53. Furthermore, Novoship has 

no reason to believe that the Discovery Targets would be subject to the English High Court’s 

jurisdiction. Id. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of granting the Petition as the discovery sought 

may be unobtainable without the aid of Section 1782. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 264 (“the need for 

[Section] 1782(a) aid generally is not as apparent as it ordinarily is when evidence is sought from 

a nonparticipant in the matter arising abroad.”). As the Supreme Court explained: “[a] foreign 

tribunal has jurisdiction over those appearing before it, and can itself order them to produce 

evidence. In contrast, nonparticipants in the foreign proceeding may be outside the foreign 

tribunal’s jurisdictional reach; hence, their evidence, available in the United States, may be 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 9 of 12
10 

unobtainable absent [Section] 1782 aid.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

B. The Foreign Tribunal’s Receptiveness to Judicial Assistance 

The next discretionary factor also weighs in favor of granting discovery. Novoship’s 

counsel representing it in the Foreign Proceeding has advised that there is no indication that the 

English High Court would not be receptive to the documentary and testimonial evidence sought 

through the instant Petition. See Declaration ¶ 54. Indeed, courts in this District have noted that 

“English courts are generally receptive to [Section] 1782 discovery.” Godfrey, 2018 WL 

1863749, at *10 (granting Section 1782 discovery in aid of proceedings before an English court); 

see also In re Application of Eurasian Bank Joint Stock Co., 3:15-mc-106-L-BN, 2015 WL 

6438256, *3 (N.D. Tex. October 21, 2015) (“In the absence of authoritative proof that a foreign 

tribunal would reject evidence obtained with the aid of section 1782, . . . the Court determines 

that the second factor does not weigh against an exercise of discretion in Eurasian’s favor.”); 

Weber v. Finker, 3:07-MC-27 J32MCR, 2007 WL 4285362, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2007) 

(same). 

C. This Request Does Not Attempt to Circumvent Foreign Restrictions 

 Next, Novoship’s counsel has advised that the evidence sought through this Petition 

likely would be admissible in the Foreign Proceeding and does not otherwise circumvent any 

proof-gathering restrictions under English law. See Declaration ¶ 54. 

Moreover, to the extent that some of the document requests seek communications with 

the Foreign Claimants and the Foreign Third-Party Defendants, that does not stifle the reach of 

Section 1782. “[E]ven when the requested documents may be available in the foreign 

jurisdiction, there is no requirement to first seek discovery from the non-US tribunal or exhaust 

other options before applying to a district court for § 1782 discovery.” Godfrey, 2018 WL 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 10 of 12
11 

1863749, at *10; see In re Clerici, 481 F.3d at 1333 n.12 (noting that, in Intel, the Supreme 

Court held that Section 1782 does not impose a foreign-discoverability requirement and that 

“nothing in the text of [Section] 1782 limits a district court’s production-order authority to 

materials that could be discovered in the foreign jurisdiction if the materials were located there”) 

(quoting Intel, 542 U.S. at 260); In re Application of Mesa Power Group, LLC, 878 F. Supp. 2d 

1296, 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (same). Indeed, “[a]bsent a persuasive showing that a [S]ection 

1782 applicant [] is actively seeking to circumvent the foreign tribunal’s discovery methods and 

restrictions, . . . this factor does not counsel against [S]ection 1782 relief.” Mesa, 878 F. Supp. 

2d at 1305. 

D. This Request Is Not Unduly Intrusive or Burdensome 

Finally, this Petition is not unduly intrusive or burdensome. As seen in the proposed 

subpoenas attached as Composite Exhibit B, Novoship seeks documentary and testimonial 

information that is or should be readily available to the Discovery Targets on a few discrete 

topics relevant to Novoship’s defense in the Foreign Proceeding. The documents sought are of 

the nature kept in the ordinary course of business and lend themselves to easy identification and 

production. See Declaration ¶ 56. 

Overall, all of the Intel discretionary factors weigh in favor of grating the Petition. 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Novoship respectfully requests that this Court enter an order granting 

this Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782; granting Novoship leave to serve the Discovery Targets 

with subpoenas substantially similar to those attached as Composite Exhibit B; reserving 

jurisdiction to grant Novoship leave to serve any additional subpoenas as may be necessary to 

obtain the evidence described in this Petition; and granting any other and further relief as the 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 11 of 12
12 

Court deems just and proper. 

DATED: April 30, 2020 REED SMITH LLP 

 By: /s/Edward M. Mullins

Edward M. Mullins (FBN 863920) 

Email: emullins@reedsmith.com 

Ana M. Barton (FBN 85721) 

Email: abarton@reedsmith,com 

1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 9th Floor 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: +1 786 747 0200 

Facsimile: +1 786 747 0299 

Attorneys for Applicant, Novoship (UK) Limited 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 12 of 12