Hachem v. Unknown Party et al
Filing
5
ORDER that Plaintiff's renewed Application Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 (Docs. 1 , 4 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 11/7/2017. (MMO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Houssam Hachem,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. MC-17-00057-PHX-DLR
Unknown Party, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
Before the Court is Plaintiff Houssam Hachem's renewed application for an order
17
under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 granting leave to obtain discovery for use in a Canadian
18
proceeding. (Docs. 1, 4.) The Canadian litigation is an action by Plaintiff against
19
presently unknown Defendants based on an anonymous and allegedly defamatory posting
20
published at www.thedirty.com ("Website"). (Docs. 1-1, 1-2 at 4.) Plaintiff contends
21
that his only reasonable means to discover Defendants' identities is to subpoena the
22
information from Dirty World, LLC, which operates the Website.
23
Upon application by any interested person, 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) allows a district
24
court to order a person residing or who may be found within its district to produce
25
documents or give testimony for use in a foreign proceeding.
26
27
28
There are thus three threshold requirements for compelling
discovery under § 1782: (1) the person from whom discovery
is sought must "reside" or be "found" in the district; (2) the
discovery must be for use in a proceeding in a foreign
tribunal; and (3) the applicant must be an "interested person."
1
In re Godfrey, 526 F. Supp. 2d 417, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
2
As the plaintiff in the Canadian litigation, Plaintiff is an interested person within
3
the meaning of the statute, and he seeks discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. The
4
Court previously denied Plaintiff's request, however, because he had not adequately
5
shown that Dirty World resides or is found in the District of Arizona. (Doc. 3.) In his
6
renewed application, Plaintiff provides this missing information.
7
attaches e-mail correspondence with counsel for Dirty World confirming its presence in
8
Arizona. (Doc. 4-1.) Based on this supplemental information, the Court finds that
9
Plaintiff meets the threshold requirements of § 1782(a).
Specifically, he
10
When the threshold requirements of § 1782(a) are met, "[t]he statute authorizes,
11
but does not require," the district court to compel the requested discovery. Intel Corp. v.
12
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 255 (2004). In exercising its discretion to
13
grant or deny a request under § 1782, the court considers several factors, including: (1)
14
whether the "person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign
15
proceeding;" (2) the nature and character of the foreign proceeding, and whether the
16
foreign court is receptive to judicial assistance from the United States; (3) whether the
17
request is an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions; and (4) whether
18
the discovery request is "unduly intrusive or burdensome." Id. at 264-66. The court may
19
also consider whether the requested materials are located outside the United States. See
20
Four Pillars Enter. Co., Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
21
2002). In weighing these factors, the court must be mindful of "the twin aims of the
22
statute: providing efficient means of assistance to participants in international litigation
23
in our federal courts and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide similar
24
means of assistant to our courts." In re Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 77, 79 (2d Cir.
25
1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
26
Plaintiff seeks to subpoena seven categories of documents related to the allegedly
27
defamatory web posting. (Doc. 1-3 at 6.) These documents do not appear unduly
28
intrusive or burdensome, and are targeted at uncovering the identities of those responsible
-2-
1
for the posting so that they may be named as defendants in the Canadian litigation. Dirty
2
World is not a party to the Canadian litigation, and there is no indication that the
3
Canadian court would be unreceptive to judicial assistance from the United States or that
4
Plaintiff's application is an attempt to circumvent Canadian proof-gathering restrictions.
5
For these reasons,
6
7
8
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's renewed Application Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1782 (Docs. 1, 4) is GRANTED.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2017.
9
10
11
12
13
Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?