Youngpoong Corp. v. PedalPoint Holdings

── Youngpoong Corp. v. PedalPoint Holdings ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General 25-3100 Youngpoong Corp. v. PedalPoint Holdings UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, DENNY CHIN, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ IN RE: APPLICATION OF YOUNGPOONG CORPORATION for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in foreign proceedings. _____________________________________ YOUNGPOONG CORPORATION, Applicant-Appellee,  v. No. 25-3100 PEDALPOINT HOLDINGS, LLC, KEVIN HAHM, JANET HA, Respondents-Appellants. _____________________________________ For Applicant-Appellee: MATTHEW S. HELLMAN (Brian J. Fischer, Jason P. Hipp, Benjamin D. Alter, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C. For Respondents- WILLIAM B. ADAMS (Nicholas J. Caluda, Appellees: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Houston, TX, on the brief), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY. Appeal from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jeannette A. Vargas, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the July 2, 2025, July 16, 2025, and November 19, 2025 orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. PedalPoint Holdings, LLC, and its officers (collectively “PedalPoint”), appeal from the district court’s orders (i) granting the application of Youngpoong Corporation to take discovery from PedalPoint in the United States, and (ii) denying PedalPoint’s motion to quash Youngpoong’s subsequently issued 2 subpoenas, which the district court issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Under that statute, district courts may compel third parties to produce evidence “for use” in foreign litigation “upon the application of any interested person.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Invoking this authority, Youngpoong sought documents and testimony from PedalPoint, a U.S.-based subsidiary of a South Korean company called Korea Zinc, whose directors Youngpoong is suing in Seoul, South Korea. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as needed to explain our decision. We review both a district court’s “decision to order discovery” under section 1782, Banoka S.a.r.l. v. Elliott Mgmt. Corp., 148 F.4th 54, 64 (2d Cir. 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted), and its “ruling on a motion to quash a [section 1782] subpoena . . . for abuse of discretion,” Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Congres