Savan Magic Ltd.

Filing 3

ORDER Denying without prejudice Petitioner's 1 Motion for Issuance of Foreign Subpoena. Any renewed petition shall be filed by 7/6/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/22/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 14 IN RE APPLICATION OF SAVAN MAGIC LTD. TO TAKE DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-01689-JCM-NJK ORDER 16 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s ex parte application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in proceedings in Singapore. See Docket No. 1. The Court finds 18 the pending application properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 19 A threshold statutory requirement for § 1782 relief is that the person from whom discovery is 20 sought resides or is found in the district of the district court to which the application is made. See, e.g., 21 In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 1998). A prima facie showing on that requirement suffices. 22 See, e.g., In re Republic of Ecuador, 2010 WL 3702427, *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010). Parties often 23 meet that burden by presenting evidence from their investigation showing the person’s residence or 24 presence in the district. See id.; see also In re Application of Ontario Principals’ Council, 2013 WL 25 6844545, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013). 26 In this case, Petitioner represents initially that it seeks discovery from Sanjay Pandya, Docket 27 No. 1 at 1 (seeking “an order from this Court allowing Savan to take the deposition testimony of Sanjay 28 Pandya and to obtain documents”), but provides no information of any kind as to whether Mr. Pandya 1 resides or is found in this district, but see Docket No. 1 at 3 (asserting that Mr. Pandjay is a “resident 2 of Singapore”). 3 Elsewhere in the application, Petitioner asserts that it is seeking discovery from Norman Bentley. 4 Docket No. 1 at 4. With respect to Mr. Bentley, the application asserts that he has a home and place of 5 business in Nevada, Docket No. 1 at 5, but that assertion is supported only by a declaration stating that, 6 “[u]pon information and belief, Mr. Bentley’s home and place of business is located within Las Vegas, 7 Nevada,” Docket No. 1-1 at ¶ 13. Petitioner has not provided any legal authority showing that a 8 conclusory declaration on information and belief is a sufficient showing of a respondent’s location. 9 Having failed to sufficiently establish the threshold requirement that the respondents reside or 10 are found in this District, Petitioner’s ex parte application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is 11 hereby DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed petition shall be filed by July 6, 2017. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: June 22, 2017 14 15 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?