In re: Request for International Judicial Assistance from the Fourth Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights in Istanbul, Turkey in the Matter of Avea Iletisim Hiezmetleri A.S. Abdi Ipekci Caddesi, Case No.2014/203

Filing 2

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 1 APPLICATION FOR ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8

IN RE: REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE
FOURTH CIVIL COURT FOR
INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INSTANBUL,
TURKEY IN THE MATTER OF AVEA
ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A.S. ABDI
IPEKCI CADDESI, CASE NO. 2014/203

Case No. 15-mc-80171-MEJ
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
Re: Dkt. No. 1

INTRODUCTION

9

The United States petitions this Court for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 appointing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Assistant United States Attorney Jennifer S. Wang as Commissioner and authorizing her to obtain

12

information from persons or entities located within the jurisdiction of this Court as requested in a

13

letter rogatory from the Fourth Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights in

14

Istanbul, Turkey (“Turkey Court”). Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court

15

GRANTS the request.

16
17

BACKGROUND
The Turkey Court is currently considering a trademark infringement case brought by Avea

18

Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. against the blogger of www.aveasohbetnumaralari.wordpress.com, case

19

file no. 2014/203. Wang Decl., Ex. A, Dkt. No. 1-2. The Turkey Court has issued a letter

20

rogatory requesting that the United States Attorney obtain the identity and contact information of

21

the user of the blog, which is owned by Automattic, Inc., for use in the proceedings. Id.

22

Automattic, Inc. is located at 132 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Wang Dec., Ex. A.

23

LEGAL STANDARD

24

“The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to

25

give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in

26

a foreign or international tribunal . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Such order may be made “pursuant

27

to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal . . . and may

28

direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before

1

a person appointed by the court.” Id. “Letters Rogatory are customarily received and appropriate

2

action taken with respect thereto ex parte.” In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo,

3

Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 1976).

4

However, “a district court is not required to grant a § 1782(a) discovery application simply

5

because it has the authority to do so.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241,

6

264 (2004). “In exercising its discretion, a district court should consider the following factors: (1)

7

whether the ‘person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding’; (2)

8

‘the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the

9

receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal court judicial
assistance’; (3) whether the request ‘conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States’; and (4) whether the request

12

is ‘unduly intrusive or burdensome.’” Matter of Appl. of O2CNI Co., Ltd., 2013 WL 4442288, at

13

*5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) (quoting Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264-65). “[D]istrict courts must

14

exercise their discretion under § 1782 in light of the twin aims of the statute: providing efficient

15

means of assistance to participants in international litigation in our federal courts and encouraging

16

foreign countries by example to provide similar means of assistance to our courts . . . .” Schmitz v.

17

Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP., 376 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal citations and

18

quotations omitted).
DISCUSSION

19

“When considering an application for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, the Court

20
21

considers first whether it has the authority to grant the request and then whether it should exercise

22

its discretion to do so.” O2CNI, 2013 WL 4442288, at *5.

23

A.

24

Statutory Authority
The district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter specially conferred by 28

25

U.S.C. § 1782, and has personal jurisdiction over this case because Automattic, Inc. is located in

26

San Francisco, in the Northern District of California. See In re Letter Rogatory from Local Court

27

of Ludwigsburg, Fed. Republic of Germany in Matter of Smith, 154 F.R.D. 196, 199 (N.D. Ill.

28

1994). Further, the information sought is “for use” in the Turkey Court’s proceedings, and the
2

1

application is “made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued . . . by a foreign . . . tribunal.” 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 1782(a). There is no reason at this point to anticipate that the information requests will

3

“compel[]” any person “to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing

4

in violation of any legally applicable privilege.” Id. The Court therefore has the authority to grant

5

the request.

6

B.

7

Discretion
Applying the Intel factors, the Court finds that the application should be granted. Since

8

Automattic, Inc. is a “nonparticipant[] in the foreign proceeding,” it “may be outside the foreign

9

tribunal’s jurisdictional reach; hence, [its] evidence, available in the United States, may be
unobtainable absent § 1782(a) aid.” Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264. Second, “the nature of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the

12

foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance,” are all

13

factors which weigh in favor of granting the request, which comes from a foreign court that has

14

specifically requested American federal assistance with a currently pending proceeding. Id.

15

Third, there is no reason to suspect that “the § 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to circumvent

16

foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States.” Id.

17

at 265. Finally, especially since the United States has specifically identified the records it will

18

seek, the information sought in the letter rogatory should be obtainable without requiring any

19

“unduly intrusive or burdensome” requests. Id.
CONCLUSION

20
21

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, the Court hereby ORDERS that Assistant U.S. Attorney

22

Jennifer S. Wang is appointed as Commissioner, that Ms. Wang is authorized to issue subpoenas

23

reasonably necessary to obtain the information sought in the letter rogatory, and to take all steps

24

reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the letter rogatory.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 22, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
3