1 KEITH R.

HUMMEL (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]
2 JUSTIN C. CLARKE (admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
3
JONATHAN MOONEY (admitted pro hac vice)
4 [email protected]
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
5 825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
6 Telephone: (212) 474-1000
7 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

8 JOE H. TUFFAHA (State Bar No. 253723)

[email protected]
9 PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN (State Bar No. 284022)
[email protected]
10 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP

11 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3950

Los Angeles, CA 90071
12 Telephone: (213) 612-8900
Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
13
Appearing specially to challenge jurisdiction and
14 service on behalf of Defendant Yuri Shefler.

15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
17 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, and Case No. 22STCV06081
18 MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
limited liability company, YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
19 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
Plaintiffs,
MOTION TO COMPEL
20 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN
vs. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
21 SET OF REQUESTS FOR
ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and PRODUCTION RE: PERSONAL
22 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited JURISDICTION
liability company, YURI SHEFLER, an
23 Filed concurrently with Declaration of
individual, ALEXEY OLIYNIK, an
individual, SPI GROUP HOLDING Jonathan Mooney
24
LIMITED, a Cyprus private limited
Judge: Hon. Lia Martin
25 company, and TENUTE DEL MONDO
Dept.: 16
B.V., a Netherlands private limited
26 Date: October 4, 2023
company, Time: 9:00 a.m.
27 Defendants. Reservation No: 851573278238
28

YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited Action Filed: February 17, 2022
liability company, Trial Date: None set.
2
Cross-Complainant,
3 vs.
4 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual,
MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
5 limited liability company, MARC-
OLIVIER PERRIN, an individual, SAS
6
MIRAVAL PROVENCE, a French limited
7 liability company, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, a French limited liability
8 company, ROLAND VENTURINI, an
individual, GARY BRADBURY, an
9 individual, WARREN GRANT, an
10 individual, SAS PETRICHOR, a French
limited liability company, VINS ET
11 DOMAINES PERRIN SC, a French
company, SAS MIRAVAL STUDIOS, a
12 French limited liability company, SASU
LE DOMAINE, a French limited liability
13 company, SAS DISTILLERIES DE LA
14 RIVIERA, a French limited liability
company, and ROES 1-10.
15
Cross-Defendants.
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................ ii

3 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................1

4 ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................4

5 I. The Documents Plaintiffs Seek Are Not Properly Subject to Jurisdictional

Discovery. ..................................................................................................................4
6
A. Communications Exclusively Between Non-California Entities that
7 Do Not Reference a Contact with California (RFP Nos. 1, 3-4, and
26)...................................................................................................................5
8
B. Documents About Shefler’s Purported Control of Nouvel (RFP
9 No. 19). ...........................................................................................................7

10 C. Documents About Shefler’s Future Business Plans for Nouvel (RFP

No. 22). ...........................................................................................................8
11
D. Documents Concerning Other Foreign Defendants’ Contacts with
12 California. .......................................................................................................9

13 II. This Motion Has Been Mooted by the Filing of the Second Amended
Complaint. ................................................................................................................10
14
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................11
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Page(s)
CASES
3
1880 Corp. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 2d 840 (1962) .....................................................................10
4
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) .......................................................4
5
Aurora Corp. of Am. v. Michlin Prosperity Co., No. CV 13-03516 RSWL, 2015
6 WL 5768340 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) ............................................................................4, 6, 10

7 Burdick v. Superior Court, 233 Cal. App. 4th 8 (2015) .......................................................5, 7, 9, 10

8 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) .....................................................................7

9 Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly, 177 Cal. App. 4th 209
(2009) ...........................................................................................................................................4
10
Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2011) ..............................................................................4
11
In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II, 135 Cal. App. 4th 100 (2005) ............................................9
12
People ex rel. Harris v. Native Wholesale Supply Co., 196 Cal. App. 4th 357
13 (2011) ...........................................................................................................................................6

14 Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998) .....................................................7

15 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A., v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984)........................................7

16 Jacqueline B. v. Rawls L. Grp., P.C., 68 Cal. App. 5th 243 (2021)...................................................9

17 Myers v. Bennett Law Offs., 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001) ..............................................................7

18 Naylor v. Superior Ct., 236 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct.
2015)...........................................................................................................................................10
19
NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022) ......................................................9
20
Rivelli v. Hemm, 67 Cal. App. 5th 380 (2021) ...........................................................................5, 7, 8
21
Salas v. Facultatieve Techs. the Am.'s Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00335(LJO)(BAM), 2018
22 WL 2010522 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) ..................................................................................4, 6

23 Smith v. Nerium Int’l, LLC, No. cv-181088, 2018 WL 6444898 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7,
2018).............................................................................................................................................6
24
State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court, 184 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2010) ..................................4, 10
25
Young v. Daimler AG, 228 Cal. App. 4th 855 (2014) ................................................................4, 6, 9
26
27

28
-ii-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 Yuri Shefler respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’

3 motion to compel the production of documents in response to certain of Plaintiffs’ First Set of

4 Requests for Production re: Personal Jurisdiction (the “Motion”). The Motion should be denied

5 because Shefler has produced all documents in his possession that could remotely relate to the

6 question of whether this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over him. Plaintiffs’ Motion is a

7 serious overreach—seeking documents far outside those that may be considered by the Court in

8 considering jurisdiction—and is grounded on unsound legal theories that are contrary to California

9 law. Plaintiffs’ Motion is also improper because, after filing the Motion, Plaintiffs received nearly

10 700 documents in jurisdictional discovery and used those materials to file a Second Amended

11 Complaint, which mooted Shefler’s then-pending motion to quash the First Amended Complaint.

12 BACKGROUND

13 This case presents a dispute over ownership and control of non-party Chateau

14 Miraval, a wine business and residential estate incorporated and located in France (Second

15 Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶¶ 1, 32), that is wholly owned by non-party Quimicum S.A.

16 (“Quimicum”), a company incorporated in Luxembourg. (Id. ¶ 32.) Quimicum was previously

17 owned 50-50 by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, who together built Chateau Miraval into a world

18 class brand. (Id. ¶¶ 48, 53-54, 59-60, 73-74.) In 2021, Defendant Tenute del Mondo B.V.

19 (“Tenute”), a private limited company incorporated and headquartered in the Netherlands (id.

20 ¶ 20), acquired Defendant Jolie’s 50% interest in Quimicum by buying Defendant Nouvel—a

21 California limited liability company whose sole asset is its 50% interest in Quimicum (the

22 Luxembourg-incorporated holding company) and shareholder loans to Quimicum (id. ¶¶ 30(a),

23 109, 111)—from Jolie.

24 Tenute’s purchase of Nouvel was negotiated largely between non-party Laurent

25 Schummer, a European lawyer based in Luxembourg (Mot. at 16), and Mr. Alexey Oliynik, a

26 representative of Tenute based in Switzerland (SAC ¶¶ 18, 87, 92). Other than five brief messages
27 to Jolie—two expressing support for the transaction before it closed and three sent after the

28

YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 closing—sent by Shefler through intermediaries, Shefler had no contacts with California related to

2 the sale. (Mooney Decl. ¶ 4.)

3 Jolie’s sale of Nouvel to Tenute (the “Transaction”) drew the ire of Pitt. He sued

4 Jolie and Nouvel in February 2022, claiming that Jolie through conduct alone agreed never to sell

5 her interest in Nouvel without Pitt’s consent. (SAC ¶ 151.) Not content to fight with Jolie, Pitt

6 filed an amended complaint in June 2022, seeking to drag into his fight with his ex-wife each of

7 Olyinik; Tenute; Tenute’s parent, SPI Group Holding Limited; and Shefler, the beneficiary of the

8 foreign trust that owns SPI Group Holding, who is a non-U.S. citizen who resides in Switzerland

9 (SAC ¶ 17, and Shefler collectively with the others, the “Foreign Defendants”). None of these

10 additional defendants had any role with or relationship to Mr. Pitt, Ms. Jolie, Nouvel, or Chateau

11 Miraval prior to the Transaction.

12 On October 3, 2022, Shefler filed a motion to quash the summons and complaint on

13 the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. On October 12, 2022, Plaintiffs

14 served Shefler with 35 requests for production, supposedly directed to jurisdiction. Many of the

15 requests, on their face, are wholly unrelated to establishing any sort of minimum contacts with the

16 State of California. Shefler served Code-compliant responses on November 18, 2022.

17 Despite Plaintiffs’ overbroad jurisdictional discovery requests, Shefler agreed to

18 search for responsive documents in several categories identified by Plaintiffs, as did the other

19 Foreign Defendants who had been served with similar requests.1 These documents include:

20 • The Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (the agreement for the sale of
Nouvel to Tenute), any ancillary documents thereto, and any drafts thereof.
21
• All documents and communications concerning any transaction negotiations that
22
reflect contacts with California, including documents that discuss or reference
23
1
24 Plaintiffs spend five pages of their brief on a distorted, one-sided account of the meet-and-confer
history. While not relevant to the underlying issues here, and not a good use of the Court’s time,
25 the truth is that the Foreign Defendants agreed to provide a core set of responsive materials, but
the parties were unable to reach a comprehensive agreement about the scope of jurisdictional
26 discovery because Plaintiffs refused to properly narrow their overbroad requests. After “the
parties agreed to a break in discovery activity through January 24, 2023” (Goodman Decl. ¶ 18),
27
they continued the meet and confer process and the Foreign Defendants agreed, on January 26,
28 2023, to produce additional documents, and actually produced them by February 28, 2023.
-2-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 indirect contacts with California and non-privileged communications with the
California-based office or attorneys of Stoel Rives concerning the transaction.
2
• All documents concerning the diligence performed by Tenute on Nouvel, including
3
due diligence concerning Nouvel’s ownership of assets.
4
• All documents concerning Ms. Jolie’s applications to the Superior Court of the
5 State of California to lift the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders (“ATROs”)
to permit the sale of Nouvel.
6
• Nouvel’s corporate filings with the State of California.
7
• Records memorializing Mr. Oliynik’s appointment as Nouvel’s manager.
8

9 • All documents and communications concerning any anticipated impact of the

transaction on Plaintiffs Pitt or Mondo Bongo, or any other resident of California.
10

11 (Clarke Jan. 26, 2023 Ltr., Ex. O at 240-41; Goodman Jan. 26, 2023 Email, Ex. P at 242-45;
2
12 Mooney Decl. ¶ 3. ) The Foreign Defendants completed their production of 686 documents on

13 February 28, 2023, well in advance of Plaintiffs’ March 27, 2023, deadline to oppose the Foreign

14 Defendants’ motions to quash. (Id. ¶ 3.) Because Shefler’s five messages to Ms. Jolie were all

15 transmitted by others, such as Mr. Oliynik, and he is not a custodian of any of the other

16 defendants’ documents, Shefler produced no documents himself. (Id. ¶ 4.)

17 Not satisfied with this production, Plaintiffs moved to compel Shefler to produce

18 even more. Specifically, they seek (i) Shefler’s “communications with Jolie’s out-of-State counsel

19 who negotiated the deal on her behalf”; (ii) Shefler’s “nonprivileged communications involving []

20 deal lawyers who were not physically based in California”; (iii) communications with other

21 defendants located in Europe about the negotiation of the deal; and (iv) “documents concerning

22 [Shefler’s] direction of Nouvel’s activities”. (Mot. at 8.)

23 On June 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, thereby

24 mooting Shefler’s October 3, 2022 motion to quash service of the First Amended Complaint

25 (“FAC”). However, Plaintiffs have refused to withdraw the Motion.

3

26
2
All Exhibit citations are to exhibits to the Goodman Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion.
27 3
Counsel for Shefler incorrectly calculated the due date for this opposition brief by not accounting
28 for Native Americans Day as a court holiday. Counsel for Shefler apologizes for this oversight.
-3-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 ARGUMENT

2 Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied. Shefler already conducted a reasonable search

3 for documents relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction. The additional documents that

4 Plaintiffs seek do not relate to any possible contacts between Shefler and the State of California

5 giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims, and therefore are not properly subject to jurisdictional discovery.

6 Also, Plaintiffs’ motion is moot because it seeks discovery in support of establishing jurisdiction

7 over Shefler in connection with claims that have been superseded. See State Comp. Ins. Fund v.

8 Superior Court, 184 Cal. App. 4th 1124, 1130-31 (2010) (“[T]he filing of an amended complaint

9 moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.”).

10 I. The Documents Plaintiffs Seek Are Not Properly Subject to Jurisdictional Discovery.

11 Jurisdictional discovery must be “narrowly tailored to flesh out certain instances of

12 alleged minimum contacts”. Aurora Corp. of Am. v. Michlin Prosperity Co., No. CV 13-03516

13 RSWL, 2015 WL 5768340, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) (emphasis added); see also Young v.

14 Daimler AG, 228 Cal. App. 4th 855, 867 n.7 (2014) (no need for additional jurisdictional

15 discovery when such discovery “would hardly have been likely to lead to the production of facts

16 establishing general jurisdiction over [Defendant] in California”). And requests that are based on

17 “purely speculative allegations of attenuated jurisdictional contacts” should be denied. Getz v.

18 Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 860 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of discovery when Plaintiff made

19 only “purely speculative allegations of attenuated jurisdictional contacts”).

20 Courts must also exercise “[g]reat care and reserve . . . when extending our notions

21 of personal jurisdiction into the international field”, Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480

22 U.S. 102, 115 (1987) (cleaned up), and should act with “increased caution” when “[a]ssuming

23 personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant from another nation”, Doe v. Roman Catholic

24 Archbishop of Cashel & Emly, 177 Cal. App. 4th 209, 221 (2009). Accordingly, “foreign

25 nationals usually should not be subjected to extensive discovery in order to determine whether

26 personal jurisdiction over them exists”. Salas v. Facultatieve Techs. the Am.’s Inc., No. 1:17-CV-
27 00335(LJO)(BAM), 2018 WL 2010522, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) (cleaned up).

28
-4-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 Plaintiffs do not argue that Shefler is subject to the general jurisdiction of the

2 California courts, and have abandoned their document requests directed at general jurisdiction

3 over Shefler. When, as here, plaintiffs argue only that a defendant is subject to specific

4 jurisdiction, “discovery must be limited to the issue of specific personal jurisdiction”. Burdick v.

5 Superior Court, 233 Cal. App. 4th 8, 30 (2015) (emphasis added). Shefler may be subjected to

6 specific jurisdiction only if Plaintiffs satisfy three requirements: (1) “the defendant must have

7 purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in this state”; (2) “the claim

8 or controversy must relate to or arise out of the defendant’s forum-related contacts”; and (3) “the

9 exercise of jurisdiction must be fair and reasonable and should not offend notions of fair play and

10 substantial justice.” Rivelli v. Hemm, 67 Cal. App. 5th 380, 392 (2021). Therefore, the only

11 jurisdictional discovery to which Plaintiffs could conceivably be entitled is that which concerns

12 Shefler’s contacts with California that relate to Plaintiffs’ claims. Id.

13 Shefler has already searched for and produced any documents that may arguably

14 establish contacts with California and that may relate to Plaintiffs’ claims. The remaining

15 materials Plaintiffs seek—concerning exclusively foreign communications and plans for future

16 conduct—are not proper subjects of jurisdictional discovery.

17 A. Communications Exclusively Between Non-California Entities that Do Not

18 Reference a Contact with California (RFP Nos. 1, 3-4, and 26).

19 Plaintiffs admit that the Transaction-related documents sought by their Motion are

20 Shefler’s communications with parties “who were not physically present in California” and

21 “internal communications” among the Foreign Defendants, who were located in Europe. (Mot.

22 at 16.) But jurisdictional discovery must be limited to the narrow question of whether there exist

23 minimum contacts with California relating to the plaintiff’s claims. Negotiation documents that

24 do not reflect contacts with a California resident do not meet this standard.

25 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue that because Nouvel is a California corporation,

26 “[e]very communication relating to the Transaction’s negotiation was [] directed toward

27 California”. (Mot. at 17.) That position—which tacitly concedes the overbreadth of the

28 requests—is legally unsound. Plaintiffs cite no direct support for their novel contention that if a
-5-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 party negotiates a transaction involving a California entity, then all documents that have anything

2 to do with that negotiation that were generated anywhere in the world must be produced during

3 jurisdictional discovery. Indeed, the law is the opposite. See Smith v. Nerium Int’l, LLC, No. cv-

4 181088, 2018 WL 6444898, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018) (discovery “should be limited only to

5 whether, on how many occasions, and for how long, plaintiffs and defendants negotiated the

6 understanding between them, either while both the parties were in California or while

7 defendants knew that plaintiffs were in California”) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ proposed rule

8 is also contrary to the well-settled principle that jurisdictional discovery of foreigners must be

9 narrowly tailored. See Aurora, 2015 WL 5768340, at *11 (requiring “narrowly tailored”

10 jurisdictional discovery requests); Salas, 2018 WL 2010522, at *4 (“extensive discovery” on

11 foreign nationals is disfavored); Young, 228 Cal. App. 4th at 867 n.7 (denying requests that

12 “would hardly have been likely to lead to the production of facts establishing [] jurisdiction”).

13 Plaintiffs also argue that “whether Schummer—or any other agent of Jolie who

14 assisted her in the negotiation of the Transaction—was physically present in California is of little

15 import” because Schummer was acting as an agent of Jolie, a California resident. (Mot. at 18.)

16 But Plaintiffs again have no support for their novel position, which would dramatically rewrite the

17 Constitutional limits of state jurisdiction, that a foreign person or entity could unwittingly become

18 subject to jurisdiction in California through negotiations with another foreigner who happens to be

19 acting on behalf of a Californian. Personal jurisdiction requires showing that the defendant

20 purposefully availed itself of the “privilege of conducting activities within the forum state”.

21 People ex rel. Harris v. Native Wholesale Supply Co., 196 Cal. App. 4th 357, 361 (2011)

22 (emphasis added). It is not sufficient to show that a defendant negotiated with someone who

23 represented someone who happened to reside in the forum state.

24 None of the caselaw Plaintiffs cite supports their grasping requests for documents

25 reflecting communications with parties not physically present in California that do not reference

26 a contact with California. The courts in Burger King and Peterson emphasized that the
27 defendants had communicated directly with individuals or offices located in the forum state.

28 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 467 n.7 (1985) (noting defendant “communicated
-6-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 directly” with offices in the forum state); Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1320

2 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting defendants “probably wrote letters and made telephone calls to []

3 California offices” during contract negotiations). Here, Plaintiffs only seek documents that were

4 not sent to California and communications made entirely outside the state.

5 In Rivelli, the court found jurisdiction based on the ongoing effects in California of

6 a distribution agreement, which included “the issuance and payment of monthly invoices, purchase

7 orders, and sales and customer support”. 67 Cal. App. 5th at 397. Plaintiffs’ only argument about

8 comparable ongoing rights and obligations in California are limited to Jolie’s indemnification

9 obligations to “the Stoli Parties” pursuant to Tenute’s contracts with Jolie. (SAC ¶ 30(g).) But

10 purposeful availment cannot be satisfied by the “unilateral activity of another party or a third

11 person”. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A., v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417 (1984).

12 Myers v. Bennett Law Offs., 238 F.3d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 2001), stands only for

13 the proposition that a defendant cannot hide behind its agent to escape being subject to personal

14 jurisdiction in the forum state, not for the proposition that a defendant becomes subject to personal

15 jurisdiction in a state when it communicates abroad with the agent of a resident of the forum state.

16 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, Shefler’s communications with European-based Schummer that

17 do not reflect any contacts with California are not “likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

18 evidence relevant to the Stoli Parties’ motions to quash”. (Mot. at 18 (cleaned up).)

19 Because communications between parties located exclusively outside of California

20 that do not reference any California contacts are irrelevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction,

21 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel such communication should be denied.

22 B. Documents About Shefler’s Purported Control of Nouvel (RFP No. 19).

23 As noted above, in order to be properly within the scope of jurisdictional discovery,

24 the information Plaintiffs seek must (1) concern contacts with California; and (2) give rise to

25 Plaintiffs’ claims. See Rivelli, 67 Cal. App. 5th at 392; Burdick 233 Cal. App. 4th at 18; supra,

26 Section I. Here, Plaintiffs’ claims related to Shefler’s purported control over Nouvel (SAC
27 ¶¶ 123-134) relate to conduct that occurred in Europe and was directed at European businesses.

28
-7-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 Plaintiffs allege that the Foreign Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs’ “continued

2 business relationships with Château Miraval S.A., Miraval Provence, and Familles Perrin, and

3 Perrin”, all French entities or persons. (Id. ¶ 215.)4 Specifically, they allege that the Foreign

4 Defendants “attempted . . . to install [their] own executives as Nouvel’s representatives on the

5 Quimicum [a Luxembourg entity’s] board” (id. ¶ 123); “demanded . . . a ‘provisional

6 administrator’” in Luxembourg to run Quimicum (id. ¶ 124); and “sought a corporate

7 restructuring” of Chateau Miraval and Miraval Provence, all French entities (id. ¶ 125). Plaintiffs

8 also allege that the Foreign Defendants, “through Nouvel”, filed legal actions. But these actions

9 concerned a French entity and were filed before French courts. (Id. ¶¶ 126-27.) By definition,

10 they do not reflect purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting business in California.

11 Seeking to sidestep this problem, Plaintiffs argue there is “no need to speculate

12 whether the Stoli Parties exercise such control over Nouvel—they admit it, alleging in Nouvel’s

13 Cross-Complaint that they ‘cause[d] Nouvel’ to bring suit [under 28 U.S.C. § 1782] in California

14 federal court to support their strategy of forcing Pitt to partner with them on their terms”. (Mot.

15 at 20.) But this is a motion concerning Shefler in particular, not the “Stoli Group” of entities that

16 Nouvel alleged “caused” it to bring suit. (Nouvel Cross-Complaint ¶ 155.) And in any case, the

17 only contacts with California that are relevant to the specific jurisdiction inquiry are those that

18 relate to or give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims. Rivelli, 67 Cal. App. 5th at 392. Plaintiffs do not

19 explain how Nouvel’s § 1782 application in California federal court relates to their claims in this

20 action. Indeed, the SAC does not even mention of Nouvel’s § 1782 application.

21 Because Request No. 19 is relevant only to Plaintiffs’ claims concerning conduct in

22 Europe—but not conduct in California—the Request is not “likely to lead to the production of

23 facts establishing[] jurisdiction” over Shefler in California. Young, 228 Cal. App. 4th at 867 n.7.

24

25 To the extent Plaintiffs assert that Shefler’s alleged control over Nouvel is related to their other
4

claims against Shelfer, there is a fatal temporal mismatch between the purported California
26 contacts and the facts giving rise to their claims. Plaintiffs’ fifth and seventh claims are premised
on Shefler’s alleged facilitation of Tenute’s purchase of Nouvel, which occurred before any of the
27
defendants could exert control over Nouvel. These claims thus cannot “relate to or arise out of”
28 Shefler’s alleged conduct post-dating the purchase of Nouvel. Rivelli, 67 Cal. App. 5th at 392.
-8-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 C. Documents About Shefler’s Future Business Plans for Nouvel (RFP No. 22).

2 Plaintiffs do not even attempt to explain how Shefler’s future plans for Nouvel

3 could establish the past or present contacts with California necessary for this Court to have

4 personal jurisdiction over Shefler. “Because specific personal jurisdiction derives from the

5 plaintiffs’ relevant contacts with the forum, [a court] cannot allow plaintiffs to base jurisdiction on

6 a contact that did not exist at the time they filed suit.” NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th

7 614, 623 (7th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Here, any future business plans for Nouvel necessarily

8 would have to concern conduct to be carried out after the Transaction.

9 Nor do Plaintiffs provide authority for the proposition that future business plans

10 may establish personal jurisdiction. To the contrary, California courts have been “hesitant to

11 premise the exertion of personal jurisdiction on possible contacts with a forum”. Jacqueline B. v.

12 Rawls L. Grp., P.C., 68 Cal. App. 5th 243, 258 (2021) (finding no personal jurisdiction merely

13 because defendants should have anticipated participating in hypothetical lawsuits in forum state).

14 Because Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 22 is not “limited to the issue of

15 specific personal jurisdiction based on the required minimum contacts . . . as relevant to the

16 jurisdictional analysis”, Burdick, 233 Cal. App. 4th at 30, Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied.

17 D. Documents Concerning Other Foreign Defendants’ Contacts with California.

18 To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to use this Motion to seek jurisdictional discovery

19 concerning other defendants’ contacts with California, the Motion fails because “[a]ny

20 [jurisdictional] discovery must be limited to the issue of specific personal jurisdiction”. Id. Under

21 California law, “[a] plaintiff attempting to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is

22 entitled to an opportunity to conduct discovery of the jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain its

23 burden of proof” in respect of such a motion. In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II, 135 Cal.

24 App. 4th 100, 127 (2005). However, California law does not allow Plaintiffs to obtain discovery

25 from Shefler for the purpose of attempting to carry their burden of proof with respect to other

26 motions to quash filed by other defendants. See 1880 Corp. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 2d 840,
27 843 (1962) (a foreign defendant who has challenged personal jurisdiction “cannot be required to

28 answer any question which is not relevant to the subject matter of the motion [to quash]”).
-9-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 Shefler’s decision to challenge jurisdiction obligates Shefler to produce discovery reflecting its

2 own contacts with California—not other defendants’ contacts with the state. See Burdick, 233

3 Cal. App. 4th at 30; Aurora, 2015 WL 5768340, at *11. Plaintiffs’ unbounded approach to

4 jurisdictional discovery is inconsistent with the narrow limits on jurisdictional discovery in

5 California. See Aurora, 2015 WL 5768340, at *11 (jurisdictional discovery must be “narrowly

6 tailored to flesh out certain instances of alleged minimum contacts”).

7 II. This Motion Has Been Mooted by the Filing of the Second Amended Complaint.

8 Plaintiffs’ Motion, filed on January 31, 2023, seeks jurisdictional discovery in

9 connection with a motion to quash service of the FAC filed by Shefler on October 3, 2022. But on

10 June 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the SAC—which introduced new and different jurisdictional

11 allegations over the Foreign Defendants (SAC ¶ 30)—rendering the FAC without “any effect

12 either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment”. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 184 Cal. App. 4th at 1131

13 (citation omitted). The filing of the SAC therefore mooted Shefler’s October 3, 2022 motion to

14 quash service of the FAC. Id. at 1131 (“[T]he filing of an amended complaint moots a motion

15 directed to a prior complaint.”) (citations omitted).

16 Moreover, on August 28, 2023, Shelfer filed a motion to quash service of the SAC,

17 responding to new jurisdictional allegations made in the SAC. (Shefler Motion to Quash Service

18 of SAC at 5-8.) It is black letter law that Plaintiffs’ Motion, which is premised on Shefler’s

19 October 3, 2022 motion to quash service of the FAC, has been mooted by the filing of the SAC,

20 upon which Shefler has filed a new motion to quash. Naylor v. Superior Ct., 236 Cal. App. 4th

21 Supp. 1, 4 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2015) (“Petitioners filed their first motion to quash service

22 of summons and complaint . . . but Hirsch filed his first amended complaint prior to the hearing on

23 that motion, thereby mooting it.”). For this reason alone, this Motion must be denied.

24 CONCLUSION

25 Plaintiffs’ Motion reaches far beyond the narrow limits of jurisdictional discovery

26 and seeks the production of documents that Plaintiffs admit do not reflect contacts with California
27 residents. In any event, the Motion was mooted by the filing of the SAC, which supersedes the

28 complaint upon which the Motion was filed. This Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
-10-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
 1 Dated: September 21, 2023 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Keith R. Hummel (admitted pro hac vice)
2 Justin C. Clarke (admitted pro hac vice)
Jonathan Mooney (admitted pro hac vice)
3

4 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP

Joe H. Tuffaha
5 Prashanth Chennakesavan
6

8 By: s/ Prashanth Chennakesavan

PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN
9 Appearing specially to challenge jurisdiction and
service on behalf of Defendant Yuri Shefler
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
-11-
YURI SHEFLER’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS