The Supreme Court granted certiorari in EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,695 F.3d 201 (2d. Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S. Ct. 895 (U.S. Jan. 10, 2014) (No. 12-842), to address the scope of discovery available to a plaintiff in possession of a valid money judgment against a foreign sovereign.  Plaintiff had filed actions in the Southern District of New York to collect on defaulted bonds issued by the defendant, the Republic of Argentina.  After plaintiff secured a judgment, it issued subpoenas to two non-party banks, seeking information concerning defendant’s assets located outside of the United States.  The district court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel in connection with the subpoenas, and the Second Circuit affirmed the order.  The Second Circuit rejected defendant Argentina’s argument that the subpoenas violated the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, holding that Argentina’s sovereign immunity was not infringed because the order at issued involved discovery, not the attachment of sovereign property, and because it was directed at third-party banks, not at Argentina itself.  The Supreme Court will address the following question:  Can post-judgment discovery in aid of enforcing a judgment against a foreign state be ordered with respect to all assets of a foreign state regardless of their location or use, or is discovery limited to assets located in the United States that are potentially subject to execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?