United States District Court, D. Nevada
IN RE APPLICATION OF SAVAN MAGIC LTD. TO TAKE DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is a motion to compel discovery filed by
Petitioner Savan Magic. Docket No. 34. Respondent Norman
Bentley filed a response in opposition, and Petitioner filed
a reply. Docket Nos. 38, 40. The motion is properly resolved
without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the
reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to compel is
the parties' familiarity, the Court provides only a brief
recitation of the background. Petitioner is engaged in
litigation in Singapore against Defendants Sanjay Pandya,
Templar Metal Traders, and Sandstone International. See,
e.g., Docket No. 35 at ¶ 3 (Decl. of Michael Jason
Lee). The crux of that action is the claim that Defendants
stole $1, 000, 000 from Petitioner through fraudulent
transfers. See, e.g., id. Pandya has
responded by alleging, inter alia, that it was
actually Petitioner and/or Sanjeev Chhabra who are
responsible for the theft of the funds. See Id. at
respect to obtaining discovery in the Singaporean litigation,
Petitioner has not been entirely successful. Sandstone
International has defaulted in that litigation, and is
therefore not participating in discovery. Id. at
¶ 5. Templar Metal Traders and Pandya have generally
refused to produce responsive documents by claiming,
inter alia, that they no longer possess the
documents because of a server malfunction. See,
e.g., id. at ¶¶ 7, 11-13. Making
matters worse, Petitioner itself no longer possesses some of
its own relevant documents because of its document retention
policy, the operation of which resulted in deletion of
relevant documents. Id. at ¶ 14.
that backdrop, Petitioner sought relief from this Court to
obtain discovery from Respondent in Nevada. On June 16, 2017,
Petitioner sought an ex parte order permitting it to
subpoena Respondent for documents and to submit for
deposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Docket No. 1.
On June 22, 2017, the Court denied that petition without
prejudice for failing to sufficiently establish that
Respondent resides or is found in this District. Docket No.
3. On June 26, 2017, Petitioner renewed its request for an
ex parte order. Docket No. 4. On June 27, 2017, the
Court granted the motion and permitted Petitioner to serve
the identified discovery. Docket No. 8. The Court expressly
provided, however, that Respondent would be permitted to
challenge the discovery once it was served both with respect
to whether it should be allowed at all under § 1782 and
the scope of the discovery that should be allowed.
Id. at 2.
12, 2017, Petitioner served the subpoena. Docket No. 25 at
¶ 4. On July 28, 2017, Respondent filed a motion to
quash the subpoena. Docket No. 12. On July 31, 2017, the
Court ordered the parties to continue their meet-and-confer
efforts. Docket No. 13. On August 11, 2017, Petitioner
withdrew its initial subpoena and, on August 14, 2017, served
an amended subpoena on Respondent. See Docket No. 24
at ¶¶ 22-24. On September 6, 2017, the Court denied
as moot the then-pending motion in light of the newly issued
subpoena. Docket No. 31. The Court ordered that any remaining
dispute be presented through a newly filed motion to compel.
Id. at 2. Petitioner thereafter filed a motion to
compel compliance with the amended subpoena, which is the
motion now pending before the Court. Docket No.
are authorized to allow discovery pursuant to § 1782
once the enumerated statutory requirements have been
satisfied. See, e.g., Schmitz v. Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 83-84 (2d
Cir. 2004). Even where those statutory requirements have been
satisfied, however, the Court is not required to grant the
§ 1782 petition. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004). Instead, it
analyzes several discretionary factors to determine whether
the discovery sought should be allowed. See Id. at
1782 provides in relevant part that:
The district court of the district in which a person resides
or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement
or to produce a document or other thing for use in a
proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including
criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation.
The order may be made . . . upon the application of any
interested person and may direct that the testimony or
statement be given, or the document or other thing be
produced, before a person appointed by the court.
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Pursuant to this statutory
language, courts are authorized to permit discovery pursuant
to § 1782 application where: (1) the person from whom
discovery is sought resides or is found in this District; (2)
the discovery is for use in a proceeding before a foreign or
international tribunal; and (3) the application is made by a
foreign or international tribunal or any interested person.
Pott v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 945
F.Supp.2d 1197, 1199 (W.D. Wash. 2013).
Court has determined that it has the statutory authority to
grant the request, then it turns to whether it should
exercise its discretion to do so. Lazaridis v. Int'l
Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children,
Inc., 760 F.Supp.2d 109, 112, (D.D.C. 2011).
“Congress gave the federal district courts broad
discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, to honor
a request for assistance under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.”
Four Pillars Enterps. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
308 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002). The discretionary
factors that district courts should consider when ruling on a
§ 1782 application include:
(1) whether the material sought is within the foreign
tribunal's jurisdictional reach and thus accessible
absent §1782 aid;
(2) the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the
proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the
foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S.
federal-court jurisdictional assistance;
(3) whether the §1782 request conceals an attempt to
circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other
policies of a ...