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)

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