Timebase Pty Ltd v. Thomson Corporation, The

Filing 78

ORDER that Defendants must submit revised letters rogatory, complying with the instructions set forth herein, for the Courts signature by Tuesday, September 22, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham on 9/17/09. (JME)

Timebase Pty Ltd v. Thomson Corporation, The

Doc. 78

Case 0:07-cv-01687-JNE-JJG Document 78

Filed 09/17/09 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

TimeBase Pty Ltd., Plaintiff, v. The Thomson Corporation, West Publishing Corporation, and West Services, Inc., Defendants.

Civ. No. 07-1687 (JNE/JJG)

ORDER

JEANNE J. GRAHAM, United States Magistrate Judge This case is before the Court on Defendants' Requests for International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence in Civil or Commercial Matters. The parties have successfully met and conferred regarding several areas of contention concerning Defendants' proposed letters rogatory, but they were unable to agree on two issues: (1) the location for production of documents and (2) the timing of oral testimony. After reviewing the parties' recent correspondence, the Court rules as follows.1 Defendants must revise the letters rogatory to designate Sydney, rather than Melbourne, as the default location for production, unless the parties agree otherwise. In addition, Defendants
1

It is the Court's understanding that, in general, any future disputes concerning the breadth of discovery, existence of privilege, or applicatio n of Australia's substantive law will be resolved by an Australian court. See In re Baycol Prods. Litig, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1061 (D. Minn. 2004) (citations omitted); Tulip Computers Int'l B.V. v. Dell Computer Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 469, 475 (D. Del. 2003) (citing Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 538 (1987)).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 0:07-cv-01687-JNE-JJG Document 78

Filed 09/17/09 Page 2 of 2

must also revise the letters rogatory to include the prior agreements of the parties, as reflected in the correspondence between the parties and to the Court. Finally, the Court takes no position on the timing of oral testimony. Defendants must submit the revised letters rogatory for the Court's signature by Tuesday, September 22, 2009.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants must submit revised letters rogatory, complying with the instructions set forth herein, for the Court's signature by Tuesday, September 22, 2009.

Dated: September 17, 2009 s/ Jeanne J. Graham JEANNE J. GRAHAM United States Magistrate Judge

2