The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 30, 2007, against Amada America, Inc. ("AA"), Amada Europe S.A. ("AE") and Amada Canada, Ltd. ("AC") asserting various product liability causes of action arising from an alleged injury that he suffered at work using a Promecam Hydraulic Press Brake that Promecam Sisson-Lehamann ("PSL")*fn1 manufactured in France in 1969.*fn2 Defendant AA was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation on April 13, 2007. See Stipulation and Order dated April 13, 2007. Defendants AC and AE moved for summary judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff volunteered to discontinue the action against Defendant AC, and the Court granted Defendant AC's motion for summary judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Memorandum-Decision and Order dated September 30, 2008, at 7. The Court denied Defendant AE's motion without prejudice, ordered the parties to conduct supplemental discovery as needed, and granted leave for Defendant AE to submit another motion for summary judgment on the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Currently before the Court is Defendant AE's renewed motion for summary judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In its September 30, 2008 Memorandum-Decision and Order ("MDO"), this Court found, based on the facts before it, that Plaintiff would have to aver facts that, if ultimately credited by the finder of fact, would suffice to establish personal jurisdiction. See MDO at 4. The Court determined that Plaintiff would either have to aver facts to demonstrate an agency relationship between Defendant AE and former Defendant AAto establish general personal jurisdiction based on former Defendant AA's New York activities or demonstrate specific jurisdiction through successor liability to PSL through a mere continuation or de facto merger in Amada Co. Ltd.'s acquisition of PSL, which was renamed Defendant AE. See id. at 4-5.
[T]he Court instruct[ed] the parties to conduct supplemental discovery as needed regarding the following issues:
* the Corporate relationship between AA, Defendant AE, and Amada Co. Ltd.;
* the nature of the distribution relationship between AA and Defendant AE including the level of control exerted by Defendant AE, whether AA sells press brakes or other machines manufactured by entities other than Defendant AE and entities other than related corporations, e.g. AC, Amada Co., Ltd., or other Amada entities;
* information regarding the sale of PSL to Amada Co., including but not limited to whether there existed legal continuity; continuity of ownership, continuity of shareholders and directors; the cessation of PSL's business; any assumption of liability by Amada Co.; and continuity of management, personnel and physical operation, i.e., whether Defendant AE (or another Amada entity) and PSL consolidated or whether the transaction constitutes a de facto merger or mere continuation;
* the corporate relationships and the details of the transactions whereby Amada Co. Ltd. or Defendant AE purchased PSL, the creation of Amada, S.A., and the transition from Amada, S.A. to Defendant AE;
* Defendant AE's business prior to the purchase of PSL and the scope of Defendant AE's business beyond the manufacture of press brakes and other business derived from the purchase of PSL;
* the nexus, or lack thereof, between the sale of the subject press brake by PSL and Defendant AE's current sales to New York;
* the process by which a customer in New York would acquire a press brake manufactured by ...