Planet Aid, Inc. et al v. Reveal, Center for Investigative Reporting et al

Filing 269

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 258 Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PLANET AID, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

Case No. 17-cv-03695-MMC (JSC)

v.
REVEAL, CENTER FOR
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS
ROGATORY

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 258

12
13

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for issuance of letters rogatory pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 1781 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and 28(b). (Dkt. No. 258.)

15

Plaintiffs’ proposed letters rogatory seek the production of documents from and depositions of

16

Malawian citizens Harrison Longwe, Kandani Ngwira, Innocent Chitosi, Mbachi Munthali, and

17

Marko Zebiah (collectively, “Foreign Declarants”). (Id. at 5; see also Dkt. Nos. 258-1- 258-5,

18

Exs. A-E.) Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion, although they “disagree with the

19

statements and characterizations of fact in that [m]otion.” (Dkt. No. 262 at 1.) After consideration

20

of Plaintiffs’ motion and Defendants’ statement of non-opposition, the Court vacates the hearing

21

scheduled for March 5, 2020 and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

22
23

LEGAL STANDARD
A letter rogatory is a formal request “from a court in which an action is pending[ ] to a

24

foreign court to perform some judicial act.” 22 C.F.R. § 92.54; see also Intel Corp. v. Advanced

25

Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 n.1 (2004) (defining “letter rogatory” as “the request by a

26

domestic court to a foreign court to take evidence from a certain witness”). The Federal Rules of

27

Civil Procedure provide for the taking of depositions within foreign countries through letters

28

rogatory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)(B) (“A deposition may be taken in a foreign country . . .

1

under a letter of request, whether or not captioned a ‘letter rogatory’; . . . .”). In accordance with

2

Rule 28(b)(1)(B), “[t]he Department of State has power, directly, or through suitable channels . . .

3

to receive a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a tribunal in the United States, to transmit it

4

to the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it is addressed, and to receive

5

and return it after execution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1781(a)(2).

6

Courts have “inherent power to issue Letters Rogatory,” United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d

7

290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958), and “[w]hether to issue such a letter is a matter of discretion,” Barnes &

8

Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 2012 WL 1808849, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2012). “When determining

9

whether to exercise its discretion, a court will generally not weigh the evidence sought from the
discovery request nor will it attempt to predict whether that information will actually be obtained.”

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Global, Inc., No. C-05-05124 JCS, 2007 WL 1880369, at *3 (N.D.

12

Cal. June 28, 2007). A court must instead apply “Rule 28(b) in light of the scope of discovery

13

provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. (collecting cases). Under Rule 26(b),

14

“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

15

claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

16
17

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs request the issuance of letters rogatory because Defendants’ pending motion to

18

strike the first amended complaint, (Dkt. No. 107), includes declarations of “all the Foreign

19

Declarants” in support of that motion, (Dkt. No. 258 at 7). Plaintiffs assert that they “have the

20

right to examine that testimony, under oath, to ensure its validity and to inquire about issues

21

necessary for a formal response to Defendants’ [m]otion [to strike].” (Id.) Plaintiffs further assert

22

that the testimony sought from the Foreign Declarants is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims of

23

defamation and proportional to the needs of the case. The Court agrees on both scores.

24

First, all Foreign Declarants submitted declarations in support of Defendants’ motion to

25

strike the first amended complaint, indicating that they are witnesses with relevant information.

26

(See Dkt. Nos. 108; 115; 116; 117; 119.) Second, the first amended complaint identifies Mr.

27

Longwe, Mr. Ngwira, and Mr. Zebiah as alleged sources of specific defamatory statements at

28

issue. (See Dkt. No. 78 at ¶¶ 30, 75, 85-88, 97, 130, 187-88, 204.) Thus, the testimony of the
2

1

Foreign Declarants is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Finally, the

2

requested discovery does not run afoul of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which provides that courts “must limit

3

the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if the discovery sought “can be obtained

4

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” See Fed. R.

5

Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Here, there is no alternative source of the information sought.
CONCLUSION

6
7

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for issuance of

8

letters rogatory. The Court will sign and affix its seal to each of the letters rogatory submitted and

9

return the letters with original signatures and seals to Plaintiffs’ counsel for forwarding to the

10

United States Department of State.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This Order disposes of Docket No. 258.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: February 24, 2020

14
15
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3