IN RE: Petition for Judicial Assistance for the Issuance of Subpoena as pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ss1782 to Obtain Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding

Filing 13

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 12 SECOND REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN LEGAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DIGITAL SHAPE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Plaintiffs, v. GLASSDOOR, INC., 14 Defendant. Case No.16-mc-80150-JSC ORDER GRANTING SECOND REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN LEGAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Re: Dkt. No. 12 15 16 Applicants Digital Shape Technologies, Inc. (“DST”), and Radomir Nikolajez 17 (“Nikolajez”) have filed a second ex parte application to take discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 1782. (Dkt. No. 12.) The Court previously granted DST and Nikolajez’s request for an order 19 under Section 1782 allowing them to issue a subpoena to obtain documents and testimony from a 20 custodian of records from non-party Glassdoor, Inc. (“Glassdoor”). (Dkt. No. 4.) Following 21 issuance of the subpoena, the Court granted a motion to compel Glassdoor to comply with the 22 subpoena. (Dkt. No. 11.) Based on Glassdoor’s production, DST and Nikolajez now seek 23 permission to issue a second subpoena pursuant to Section 1782. (Dkt. No. 12.) Upon 24 consideration of the application and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the 25 application. 26 BACKGROUND 27 DST, and its president, Nikolajev, (together “DST”) are plaintiffs in an action in the 28 Quebec Superior Court, District of Montreal, Canada (the “Canadian Action”). See Digital Shape 1 Technologies Inc. and Radomir Nikolajev v. Kelly Mikulec, Case No. 500-17-080160-131. In that 2 action, DST alleges that Kelly Mikulec, a former DST employee, provided false and defamatory 3 statements in the form of a review posted on Glassdoor’s Canadian website about DST and 4 Nikolajev. (Dkt. No. 2 at ¶ 6.) Glassdoor is not a party to the Canadian Action. The Court’s prior 5 Orders detailed the background of the Canadian Action and DST’s efforts to obtain information 6 from Glassdoor relevant to that action which the Court incorporates by reference. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 7 11.) As noted, the Court previously granted DST permission to issue a subpoena to Glassdoor 8 seeking additional information regarding the at-issue review and when Glassdoor failed to respond 9 to the subpoena, the Court granted DST’s motion to compel them to do so. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In particular, Glassdoor was ordered to provide information responsive to the following two requests: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Documents sufficient to show the email address and IP address of the user who posted the March 7, 2013 review and rating of Digital Shape Technologies Inc. (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), as well as the URL corresponding to their submission. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: The Google Analytics statistics reports relating to the March 7, 2013 review and rating of Digital Shape Technologies Inc. (Exhibit 1), including the number of users having viewed the March 7, 2013 review and rating (Exhibit 1), the time and date of viewing, the city associated with the IP addresses of these users, as well as their IP addresses. (Dkt. No. 5-1 at 6.) 19 In response to Request No. 3, Glassdoor provided an email address associated the with the user 20 who posted the at-issue review as well as an IP address, but the IP address was not the one that was 21 used to post the review because Glassdoor no longer has this information. Instead, Glassdoor provided 22 23 24 an “IP address associated with the email address of the review author from a separate login.” (Dkt. No. 12-1 at ¶ 3.) DST thus seeks the “date and time of the ‘separate login’ which bears on whether the poster likely used the same IP address for the reviews.” (Id.; Dkt. No. 12 at 9.) Glassdoor declined to 25 provide this information. Nor did Glassdoor provide the URL associated with the individual who 26 posted the review, but instead, provided the URL for the review itself. DST thus seeks leave to issue a 27 subpoena seeking the URL or “network domain” associated with the user who posted the review. 28 2 1 (Dkt. No. 12 at 9.) In response to Request No. 4, Glassdoor responded that there were no IP addresses 2 captured by the Google Analytics report and thus declined to provide IP addresses. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at ¶ 3 5.) DST therefore seeks leave to issue a subpoena seeking the IP addresses of the Glassdoor users who 4 read the review. (Dkt. No. 12 at 9.) DST also seeks a deposition to authenticate responsive documents 5 and information. 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 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. 13 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). A litigant in a foreign action qualifies as an “interested person” under 14 Section 1782. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004). To 15 apply for discovery pursuant to Section 1782, a formal proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction need 16 not be currently pending, or even imminent. Id. at 258-59. Instead, all that is necessary is that a 17 “dispositive ruling” by the foreign adjudicative body is “within reasonable contemplation.” Id. at 18 259 (holding that discovery was proper under Section 1782 even though the applicant’s complaint 19 was still only in the investigative stage). When it comes to requests directly from foreign courts, 20 district courts typically handle Section 1782 discovery requests in the context of an ex parte 21 application for an order appointing a commissioner to collect the information. See In re Letters 22 Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that the 23 subpoenaed parties may object and exercise due process rights by bringing motions to quash the 24 subpoenas after the court issues a Section 1782 order); see, e.g., In re Request for Int’l Judicial 25 Assistance from the Nat’l Ct. Admin. of the Republic of Korea, No. C15-80069 MISC LB, 2015 26 WL 1064790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2015) (granting ex parte application for a Section 1782 27 order); In re Request for Int’l Judicial Assistance from the 16th Family Ct. of the Supreme Ct. of 28 Justice of the Fed. Dist., No. 14-mc-80083-JST, 2014 WL 1202545, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 3 1 2014) (same). The same is generally true for Section 1782 applications brought by private parties. 2 See, e.g., Mak v. For the Issuance of Discovery in Aid of Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. 1782, No. C 12-80118 SI, 2012 WL 2906761, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012) (denying 4 motion to quash after having granted ex parte application for deposition subpoena under Section 5 1782). The court retains wide discretion to grant discovery under Section 1782. See Intel, 542 6 7 U.S. at 260-61. In exercising its discretion, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether 8 the “person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding”; (2) “the 9 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 judicial 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 assistance”; (3) whether the request “conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering 12 restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States”; and (4) whether the request 13 is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” Id. at 264-65; see also In re Request for Judicial Assistance 14 from the Seoul Dist. Crim. Ct., 555 F.2d 720, 723 (9th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted) (noting that 15 the only requirements explicit in the statute are that the request be made by a foreign or 16 international tribunal, and that the testimony or material requested be for use in a proceeding in 17 such a tribunal, but also holding “that the investigation in connection with which the request is 18 made must related to a judicial or quasi-judicial controversy”). “A district court’s discretion is to be exercised in view of the twin aims of [Section] 1782: 19 20 providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation, and encouraging foreign 21 countries by example to provide similar assistance to our courts.” Nat’l Ct. Admin. of the Republic 22 of Korea, 2015 WL 1064790, at *2 (citing Schmitz v. Bernstein Libehard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 23 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2004)). The party seeking discovery need not establish that the information 24 sought would be discoverable under the foreign court’s law or that the U.S. would permit the 25 discovery in an analogous domestic proceeding. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 247, 261-63. ANALYSIS 26 27 28 A. Statutory Authority As the Court found in granting DST’s first Section 1782 application, the minimum 4 1 requirements of Section 1782 are satisfied. First, Glassdoor’s principal place of business is in Mill 2 Valley, California which is within the Northern District of California. Second, the requested 3 discovery is for use in a Canadian lawsuit, which is a proceeding before a foreign tribunal. With 4 respect to the third factor, Section 1782 plainly states that discovery orders may issue upon the 5 request of either a foreign tribunal or an interested party. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). An “interested 6 person” seeking to invoke the discovery mechanism of Section 1782 may include “litigants before 7 foreign or international tribunals . . . as well as any other person . . . [who] merely possesses a 8 reasonable interest in obtaining [judicial] assistance.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 256-57 (quotation marks 9 and citation omitted). Applicants are parties to the foreign proceedings underlying this case; indeed, they are the plaintiffs in an action alleging that defamatory statements were made 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 regarding them on Glassdoor’s Canadian site. (See Dkt. No. 3-1.) Accordingly, DST has a 12 “reasonable interest” in obtaining judicial assistance and, therefore, may apply for judicial 13 assistance pursuant to Section 1782. See Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Fibrogren, Inc., 793 F.3d 14 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2015). Lastly, the instant ex parte application is an acceptable method of 15 requested discovery under Section 1782. See Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d at 1219. 16 B. Discretion 17 The Court finds good cause to exercise its discretion to authorize the requested discovery. 18 Glassdoor is not a party to the Canadian Action, and therefore discovery regarding the review and 19 its audience is unattainable absent Section 1782(a) aid. As the Court previously found, the 20 Canadian court’s order authorizing issuance of the subpoena demonstrates that the request is not 21 an attempt to circumvent proof-gathering restrictions in either Canada or the United States, and 22 that the Canadian court would be receptive to an order from this Court. Further, it is not obvious 23 that the production of this information is unduly burdensome. The Court thus concludes that there 24 is good cause to grant the requested discovery. 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS DST’s application and authorizes 27 service of a subpoena consistent with the request in DST’s application (Dkt. No. 12 at 9.). The 28 return date of the subpoena shall be set after the expiration of the 30-day period to allow 5 1 Glassdoor to contest the subpoena if it has a good faith basis to do so. Should Glassdoor file a 2 motion to quash or DST file a motion to compel, this action shall automatically be reopened. 3 This Order disposes of Docket Number 12. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: November 30, 2016 6 7 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

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?