Belya et al v. Kapral et al, No. 1:2020cv06597 - Document 66 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: denying 62 Letter Motion for Discovery; denying 62 Letter Motion to Stay re: 62 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Discovery limitation or bifurcation addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Donald J. Feerick & Alak Shah dated 7/21/2021.FIRST LETTER MOTION to Stay discovery addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Donald J. Feerick & Alak Shah dated 7/21/2021. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 7/27/2021) (js)

Download PDF
Belya et al v. Kapral et al Doc. 66 Case 1:20-cv-06597-VM Document 66 Filed 07/27/21 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------X ALEXANDER BELYA, : : Plaintiff, : : -against: : HILARION KAPRAL, et al., : : Defendants. : ---------------------------------X VICTOR MARRERO, U.S.D.J.: 7/27/2021 20 Civ. 6597(VM) DECISION & ORDER Before the Court is a pending letter request filed by defendants Hilarion Kapral a/k/a Metropolitan Hilarion, Nicholas Olkhovskiy, Victor Potapov, Serge Lukianov, David Straut, Alexandre Antchoutine, Mark Mancuso, George Temidis, Serafim Gan, Boris Dmitrieff, Eastern American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and John Does 1 through 100 (“Defendants”) requesting a premotion conference to move the Court to bifurcate discovery or otherwise stay the action pending resolution of their appeal. (See “Motion,” Dkt. No. 62.) Plaintiff Alexander Belya (“Belya”) opposed the request. (See Dkt. No. 63.) The Court hereby denies the request for a conference and will address Defendants’ Motion on the merits. 1 1 See Kapitalforeningen Lægernes Invest. v. United Techs. Corp., 779 F. App’x 69, 70 (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming the district court’s ruling deeming an exchange of letters as a fully submitted motion). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-06597-VM Document 66 Filed 07/27/21 Page 2 of 3 On May 19, 2021, the Court denied Defendants’ so-deemed motion to dismiss the complaint, holding, in relevant part, that Belya’s claims raised purely secular issues that could be resolved by appeal to neutral principles of law. (See Dkt. No. 46 at 11-12). On July 6, 2021, the Court denied Defendants’ request to alter that decision and order as untimely, and likewise denied Defendants’ request to certify questions related to the application of the ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention for interlocutory appeal. (See Dkt. No. 57.) Upon review of Defendants’ Motion, Belya’s opposition, the Court’s previous rulings noted above, and other materials in the record the Court is persuaded Defendants’ Motion warrants denial. The Court notes that this matter is limited to an inquiry into whether the relevant statements made concerning Belya were defamatory statements. This is a factbased inquiry as to what occurred, and the Court will not pass judgment on the internal policies and or determinations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, nor would it be able to under the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention. The Court therefore finds bifurcation of discovery to be unwarranted and a stay to be unnecessary. I. ORDER For the reasons stated above, it is hereby 2 Case 1:20-cv-06597-VM Document 66 Filed 07/27/21 Page 3 of 3 ORDERED that the motion to bifurcate discovery or otherwise stay the action (Dkt. No. 62) filed by defendants Hilarion Kapral a/k/a Metropolitan Hilarion, Nicholas Olkhovskiy, Victor Potapov, Serge Lukianov, David Straut, Alexandre Antchoutine, Mark Mancuso, George Temidis, Serafim Gan, Boris Dmitrieff, Eastern American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and John Does 1 through 100 is DENIED, and it is further ORDERED that the parties comply with the Court’s July 14, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 59) regarding the submission of a joint-letter and proposed case management plan. SO ORDERED: Dated: New York, New York 27 July 2021 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.