9 1
THU
9:28 MIKE
JUL 04 '91 08:34
07. 03. 91
KINGSTON
Р.
168 P09
PO9
BOASE & COHEN 852-5295035
:
12:47
:
PM
C
not respond to this latter, and Osman thereafter obtained an Order
to show cause on March 29, 1991 in Part I of this Court seeking i
ruling that the procedures used for the depositions had bae:
improper and directing the return of the materials from Hong Kong
on April 9, 1991, a second Order to show Cause was issued,
issued, and
supplemental order was issued on April 12, directing service upc
Harris and Grant personally. The motion was arguad and ful!
submitted on May 3, 1991.
Discussion
し
Osman contends that as an identified respondent in
underlying criminal proceedings in Hong Kong and on each Letter
Request he should have been given notice of the depositions and
opportunity to attend and participate. He contends that the :
of such notice violated both § 1782 and the March and Septe
Orders, and requires that the improperly obtained material:
returned from Hong Kong.
The Governmant counters that notice to Osman was
required under either the March order or the September order
that f 1782 was not violated in that both orders specit:
provided for procedures under which notice was not necessary government further asserts that even if it should have given notice of the depositions, its failure to do so was not so f
az to warrant the relief which he now seaks.
!
6
13