Xcentric Ventures LLC v. Karsen Limited et al

Filing 68

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion for issuance of letters rogatory to the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice 48 [See order for details]. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 09/25/2012. (JAMA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Xcentric Ventures, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Karsen, Ltd., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-01055-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for issuance of letters rogatory to the Indian

16

Ministry of Law and Justice (doc. 48). Defendant Eugene Selihov did not respond and the

17

time for doing so has expired.

18

Plaintiff asks the court to issue a request for judicial assistance to the

19

government of India to compel the production of documents from third party Directi Internet

20

Solutions, Pvt. Ltd. ("Directi"). Directi is located in Mumbai, India. It operates the website

21

www.privacyprotect.org, which allows website owners to hide their identity.

22

Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit against Karsen, Ltd., the party it believed owned

23

www.scaminformer.com. After the court entered default judgment against Karsen, Ltd.,

24

Selihov appeared and claimed that he owned www.scaminformer.com. Identical websites

25

have appeared since this litigation commenced, including www.scamtracers.com,

26

www.scamion.com, www.devreviews.com, and www.scamfraudripoff.com. The appearance

27

and content of these websites is very similar to www.scaminformer.com. All five sites are

28

hosted by the same Russian company. And the HTML source code accessible only to a site's

1

administrator links www.scaminformer.com with www.scamion.com. Defendant denies

2

owning any of these duplicate sites and their owners' identity is hidden by Directi's privacy

3

protection service.

4

The Hague Convention, of which the United States and India are signatories, provides

5

the procedures for obtaining evidence abroad for use in judicial proceedings. District courts

6

have inherent authority to issue letters of request to foreign tribunals. See 28 U.S.C. §

7

1781(b)(2); United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958). Rule 28(b), Fed. R.

8

Civ. P., provides that letters rogatory may be issued to take a deposition in a foreign country

9

on appropriate terms after application and notice and without a showing that taking the

10

deposition in another manner is impractical or inconvenient. This Rule formerly provided

11

that "letters rogatory shall be issued only when necessary or convenient" (emphasis added).

12

This limitation was removed without comment in a 1963 amendment. Courts generally issue

13

a letter of request unless the party opposing the request demonstrates good reason why it

14

should not issue. See, e.g., In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 361, 364-65 & n.17

15

(D. Kan. 2010); Evanston Ins. Co. v. OEA, Inc., No. CIV S-02-1505 DFL PAN, 2006 WL

16

1652315 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2006); Zassenhaus v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 404 F.2d

17

1361, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1968).

18

Defendant does not oppose this motion. The information plaintiff seeks may be

19

relevant to its case and lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Permitting discovery

20

here is consistent with Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. However, any delay in responding to

21

the request shall not be cause to delay this case.

22
23
24

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion for issuance of letters rogatory to
the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice (doc. 48). We do so by separate order.
DATED this 25th day of September, 2012.

25
26
27
28
-2-