In Re Application of James F. Rigby, Jr.
Filing
5
ORDER granting 1 Ex Parte Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782. As provided herein, the requested deposition subpoena may be served along with a copy of the attached Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 2/19/13. (Dembin, Mitchell)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
IN RE EX PARTE
APPLICATION OF JAMES F.
RIGBY, JR., CHAPTER 7
TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF
MICHAEL R. MASTRO
Applicant.
CASE NO. 13cv0271-MMA (MDD)
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782
[ECF. No. 1]
15
16
17
18
On February 1, 2013, James R. Rigby, Jr., the Chapter 7 Trustee of
19
the Estate of Michael R. Mastro, (“Applicant” or “Trustee”) filed an Ex
20
Parte Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Granting
21
Leave to Obtain Discovery from Michael K. Mastro for Use in Foreign
22
Proceedings. (ECF No. 1). The Applicant seeks permission to subpoena
23
Mr. Mastro for deposition regarding a dispute pending in France.
24
According to the Application, Michael K. Mastro is the son of
25
Michael R. Mastro. An involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed
26
regarding Michael R. Mastro’s business in 2009. In 2011, the Honorable
27
Marc Berreca of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
28
District of Washington found that Michael R. Mastro and his wife had
-1-
13cv0271-MMA (MDD)
1
made false and fraudulent representations and fraudulently transferred
2
assets. Judge Barreco ordered the arrest of Michael R. Mastro and his
3
wife in July 2011. They were arrested in France on October 24, 2012. A
4
federal indictment charging them with bankruptcy fraud and money
5
laundering was entered on October 25, 2012.
6
The Application further reports that in November 2012, the
7
Trustee obtained an order from the district court in Annecy, France,
8
authorizing the bailiff of that court to take possession of and inventory
9
all of the documents and property found at the home of Michael R.
10
Mastro and his wife in France. In December 2012, Michael R. Mastro,
11
his wife, and Michael K. Mastro filed a petition in the French court
12
seeking, among other things, return of certain personal property.
13
Michael K. Mastro resides in the Southern District of California.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
14
15
A district court may grant an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
16
1782 where: (1) the person from whom the discovery is sought resides or
17
is found in the district of the district court to which the application is
18
made; (2) the discovery is for use in a proceeding before a foreign
19
tribunal; and, (3) the application is made by a foreign or internal
20
tribunal or any interested person. See, e.g., Lazaridis v. International
21
Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, 760 F.Supp.2d 109, 112
22
(D.D.C. 2011).
23
Even if these requirements are met, a district court retains the
24
discretion to deny the request. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices,
25
Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004); In re Premises Located at 840 140th
26
Avenue., N.E., Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557, 563 (9th Cir. 2011). The
27
Supreme Court, in Intel, identified several factors that a court should
28
consider in ruling on a request under § 1782:
-2-
13cv0271-MMA (MDD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
“(1) whether the material sought is within the foreign
tribunal's jurisdictional reach and thus accessible absent
Section 1782 aid;
(2) the 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 jurisdictional assistance;
(3) whether the Section 1782 request conceals an attempt to
circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other
policies of a foreign country or theUnited States; and,
(4) whether the subpoena contains unduly intrusive or
burdensome requests.”
542 U.S. at 264-65.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
II. DISCUSSION
A. Authority to Issue Subpoena
Having reviewed the application, the Court finds that the statutory
requirements have been satisfied. Mr. Mastro resides in the Southern
District of California, there is a pending proceeding in a French court
and the Trustee is an “interested party” as he is a party to the litigation
in France.
B. Discretionary Factors
1. Jurisdictional Reach of Foreign Tribunal
The Supreme Court, in Intel, stated that,
26
when the person from whom discovery is sought is a
participant in the foreign proceeding ..., the need for § 1782(a)
aid generally is not as apparent as it ordinarily is when
evidence is sought from a nonparticipant in the matter
arising abroad. A foreign tribunal has jurisdiction over those
appearing before it, and can itself order them to produce
evidence. In contrast, nonparticipants in the foreign
proceeding may be outside the foreign tribunal' s
jurisdictional reach; hence, their evidence, available in the
United States, may be unobtainable absent § 1782(a)
aid.
542 U.S. at 264.
27
Mr. Mastro is a party to the French lawsuit so this factor may
21
22
23
24
25
28
weigh against granting the application. The Trustee asserts, however,
-3-
13cv0271-MMA (MDD)
1
that French civil procedure does not include a discovery process
2
adequate to the task. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Specifically, the Trustee asserts
3
that French procedure requires that the party seeking discovery needs to
4
identify the precise document sought for production. (Id.). The
5
application does not address the availability of depositions in French
6
civil procedure. Although § 1782 does not have an “exhaustion”
7
requirement, the Court is permitted, in deciding how to exercise its
8
discretion, to consider whether the applicant has availed itself of
9
discovery procedures in the foreign forum. See In re Degitechnic, 2007
10
WL 1367697 at *4 (W.D.Wash. 2007). Here, there is a lack of clarity on
11
the issue of whether the jurisdictional reach of the French court extends
12
to depositions. Due to the lack of clarity, the Court finds that this factor
13
weighs against granting this application.
14
2. Nature and Receptivity of Foreign Tribunal
15
The Trustee has made a sufficient showing that the French courts
16
would be receptive to the introduction of evidence obtained pursuant to
17
§ 1782. Consequently, this Court views this factor as favoring the
18
Applicant.
19
20
3. Attempt to Circumvent Foreign Proof-Gathering
Restrictions and Policies
21
Applicant claims to be “unaware of any restrictions on proof-
22
gathering that would prohibit obtaining the discovery it seeks through
23
Section 1782.” (ECF No. 1 at 8). As discussed above, however, the
24
Trustee has not addressed the availability of party depositions in the
25
French proceeding. So, while there is no evidence that the Trustee is
26
seeking to circumvent restrictions that may exist in the host court, this
27
factor does not help to convince the Court to exercise its discretion in
28
favor of the Applicant.
-4-
13cv0271-MMA (MDD)
1
4. Undue Intrusion or Burden
2
It does not appear that requiring Mr. Mastro to be deposed
3
regarding the petition he filed in France would constitute and undue
4
intrusion or burden upon him. To the contrary, if French procedure
5
allows for depositions, Mr. Mastro might be required to travel there to be
6
deposed. The instant arrangement is far more convenient for him and
7
for the Trustee.
8
C.
9
Final Analysis
The Court finds that applying the Intel factors does not clearly
10
suggest how the Court should exercise its discretion in this case. But,
11
considering that our courts generally favor discovery, the Court will
12
authorize the issuance of the requested deposition subpoena. A copy of
13
this Order must be served with the subpoena.
14
15
III. CONCLUSION
The application is GRANTED. Applicant may serve Michael K.
16
Mastro with a deposition subpoena. A copy of this Order must be served
17
with the subpoena. Nothing herein prevents Mr. Mastro from asserting
18
any rights he may have to challenge the subpoena after it is served. Any
19
such challenge must be filed as a motion to quash in this docket.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 19, 2013
22
23
24
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
-5-
13cv0271-MMA (MDD)
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?