In re: Request for International Judicial Assistance from the Turkish Ministry of Justice on Behalf of the 2nd Civil Court of Peace of Edirne in the Matter of Sami Aytav V. Tugge Aksal and Aksal Mim.Muh.Tur.San.Tic. A.S.
Filing
6
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN LEGAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1782. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/23/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
IN RE: REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE
TURKISH MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
7
8
Defendant.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 16-mc-80108-JSC
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO
CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A
FOREIGN LEGAL PROCEEDING
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1782
Re: Dkt. No. 1
12
Petitioner United States of America filed an ex parte application to take discovery pursuant
13
14
to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 That statute allows a district court to order a person residing
15
or found within its district to produce documents or provide testimony for use in a foreign legal
16
proceeding, unless the disclosure would violate a legal privilege. Upon consideration of the United
17
States’s application and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the application.
BACKGROUND
18
On behalf of the Second Civil Court of Peace of Edirne, Turkey, the Turkish Ministry of
19
20
Justice requests that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California
21
obtain information and documents from Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), a company located in
22
Menlo Park, California, which is located in this District. (Dkt. No. 2 at 1.) The Turkish court
23
seeks the information and documents for use in a lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Sami Aytav against
24
Tucge Aksal and Aksal Mim. Muh. Tur. San. Tic. A.S. (Dkt. No. 3 at 5.) In that proceeding,
25
Plaintiff Aytav cited some Facebook messages as evidence. (Id.) The Turkish court seeks
26
27
28
1
Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1
“messages sent by Ramazan Oguz Askal to Sami Aytav whom [sic] e-mail address to login to
2
Facebook is samiaytav@gmail.com between [M]arch 23, 2015 – [M]arch 24, 2015; [IP] addresses
3
of sender and receiver of messages, date and time of those [IP] addresses[.]” (Id.) At this time,
4
the Turkish court and the United States Attorney’s Office is only seeking an order for the non-
5
content information from Aytav’s Facebook account—that is, the IP address information but not
6
the messages themselves. (See Dkt. No. 2 at 1.)
7
According to Assistant United States Attorney Wendy M. Garbers, counsel for Facebook
8
has represented that Facebook does not oppose the instant request for a Section 1782 order. (Dkt.
9
No. 3 ¶¶ 3-4.)
10
The United States filed the pending application on May 17, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) It asks the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Court to grant the application with respect to non-content information only and to appoint Ms.
12
Garbers as Commissioner and authorize her to obtain the requested information from Facebook.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
LEGAL STANDARD
Section 1782(a) provides, in pertinent part:
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 pursuant to a
letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international
tribunal or 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.
20
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). A litigant in a foreign action qualifies as an “interested person” under
21
Section 1782. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004). To
22
apply for discovery pursuant to Section 1782, a formal proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction need
23
not be currently pending, or even imminent. Id. at 258-59. Instead, all that is necessary is that a
24
“dispositive ruling” by the foreign adjudicative body is “within reasonable contemplation.” Id. at
25
259 (holding that discovery was proper under Section 1782 even though the applicant’s complaint
26
was still only in the investigative stage). Courts typically handle Section 1782 discovery requests
27
in the context of an ex parte application for an order appointing a commissioner to collect the
28
information. See In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th
2
1
Cir. 1976) (holding that the subpoenaed parties may object and exercise due process rights by
2
bringing motions to quash the subpoenas after the court issues a Section 1782 order); see, e.g., In
3
re Request for Int’l Judicial Assistance from the Nat’l Court Admin. of the Republic of Korea, No.
4
C15-80069 MISC LB, 2015 WL 1064790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2015) (granting ex parte
5
application for a Section 1782 order); In re Request for Int’l Judicial Assistance from the 16th
6
Family Ct. of the Supreme Ct. of Justice of the Fed. Dist., No. 14-mc-80083-JST, 2014 WL
7
1202545, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014) (same).
8
9
The court retains wide discretion to grant discovery under Section 1782. See Intel, 542
U.S. at 260-61. In exercising its discretion, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether
the “person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding”; (2) “the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the
12
receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal court judicial
13
assistance”; (3) whether the request “conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering
14
restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States”; and (4) whether the request
15
is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” Id. at 264-65; see also In re Request for Judicial Assistance
16
from the Seoul Dist. Crim. Ct., 555 F.2d 720, 723 (9th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted) (noting that
17
the only requirements explicit in the statute are that the request be made by a foreign or
18
international tribunal, and that the testimony or material requested be for use in a proceeding in
19
such a tribunal, but also holding “that the investigation in connection with which the request is
20
made must related to a judicial or quasi-judicial controversy”).
21
“A district court’s discretion is to be exercised in view of the twin aims of [Section] 1782:
22
providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation, and encouraging foreign
23
countries by example to provide similar assistance to our courts.” Nat’l Court Admin of the
24
Republic of Korea, 2015 WL 1064790, at *2 (citing Schmitz v. Bernstein Libehard & Liftshitz,
25
LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2004)). The party seeking discovery need not establish that the
26
information sought would be discoverable under the foreign court’s law or that the U.S. would
27
permit the discovery in an analogous domestic proceeding. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 247, 261-63.
28
3
ANALYSIS
1
2
A.
Statutory Authority
3
The United States’s application satisfies the minimum requirements of Section 1782:
4
Facebook resides in Menlo Park, California, which is in this District; the requested discovery is for
5
use in a Turkish lawsuit, which is a proceeding before a foreign tribunal; the Turkish Ministry of
6
Justice made the request on behalf of the Second Civil Court of Peace in Edirne, Turkey, a foreign
7
tribunal; and the instant ex parte application is an acceptable method of requested discovery under
8
Section 1782. See Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d at 1219.
9
B.
10
Discretion
The Court finds good cause to exercise its discretion to authorize the requested discovery.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Although Facebook is not a litigant in the Turkish lawsuit, Turkey requested the information,
12
which makes clear that the Turkish court is receptive to this Court’s assistance and that the request
13
is not an attempt to circumvent proof-gathering restrictions in either Turkey or the United States.
14
It does not appear that the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome, especially given that the
15
request is currently limited to non-content information and Facebook does not object at this time.
16
However, should Facebook disagree upon being served with the subpoena, it may file a motion to
17
quash and raise the issue at that time.
CONCLUSION
18
19
For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS the United States’s application and
20
appoints Assistant United States Attorney Wendy M. Garbers as Commissioner and authorizes her
21
to obtain the requested non-content information from Facebook. Although Facebook has
22
represented that it consents to this request, should Facebook file a motion to quash, this action
23
shall automatically be reopened.
24
This Order disposes of Docket Number 1. The Clerk is directed to close the file.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: May 23, 2016
27
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
28
4
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?