Bigpayout et al v. Mantex Enterprises et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 52 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 10/13/2015. (jds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
BIGPAYOUT, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability
Company, FINISH POINT MARKETING,
LLC., a Utah Limited Liability Company, ,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION
Case No. 2:12-cv-1183-RJS-BCW
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
MANTEX ENTERPRISES, LTD., a
corporation, AMBER BUSINESS SERVICES,
d/b/a AMBER NOMINEES LIMITED, a
Corporation, and LUIS HENRIQUE SANTOS
REIS VALENTE SOARES, an individual,
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
District Judge Robert J. Shelby referred this case to Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Bigpayout, LLC and Finish
Point Marketing LLC’s (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Defendant’s
Deposition.2 This matter has been fully briefed by the parties and is ripe for decision. Upon
review and consideration of the materials submitted in relation to this Motion, the Court finds
oral argument unnecessary and will decide this motion based upon the briefs. For the reasons set
forth more fully below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and ORDERS that Defendant
Soares travel to Utah for his deposition.
Defendant Luis Henrique Santos Reis Valente Soares (hereinafter referred to as “Soares”)
is the sole owner of Defendant companies Mantex Enterprises, Ltd. (“Mantex”) and Amber
Nominees Limited (“Amber”). Soares resides in Brazil. This dispute arises from contracts that
Docket no. 53.
Docket no. 52.
were entered by and between Plaintiffs, Mantex and Amber. Specifically, the agreement at issue
signed by Soares, on behalf of Mantex states “[a]ny litigation arising out of this Agreement will
be brought exclusively in the state or federal courts located in Utah County, Utah, and the parties
irrevocably agree that jurisdiction and venue properly lie in such courts.”
Plaintiffs wish to depose Soares. Soares refuses to come to Utah for his deposition.
Instead, Soares would like to be deposed in Brazil. However, Brazilian law significantly limits
Plaintiffs ability to depose Soares in Brazil. Specifically, according to the United States
Department of State:
Brazil is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil
and Commercial Matters. The United States is not a party to the evidence provisions of
the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol. Brazilian
authorities do not permit persons, such as American attorneys, to take depositions for use
in a court in the United States before a U.S. consular officer, with the assistance of a
Brazilian attorney, or in any other manner. Brazilian law views the taking of depositions
for use in foreign courts as an act that may be undertaken in Brazil only by Brazilian
judicial authorities. The Government of Brazil asserts that, under Brazilian Constitutional
Law, only Brazilian judicial authorities are competent to perform acts of a judicial nature
in Brazil. Brazil has advised it would deem taking depositions in Brazil by foreign
persons to be a violation of Brazil's judicial sovereignty. Such action potentially could
result in the arrest, detention, expulsion, or deportation of the American attorney or other
American participants. The United States recognizes the right of judicial sovereignty of
foreign governments based on customary international law and practice. It is the State
Department's understanding that the Brazilian prohibition on taking depositions by
foreign persons extends to telephone or video teleconference depositions initiated from
the United States of a witness in Brazil. The U.S. Embassy or Consulates in Brazil could
in no way participate in, or otherwise sanction, such a proceeding. The State Department
advises U.S. citizens contemplating participation in such a proceeding, without Brazil's
concurrence, obtained through diplomatic channels, to consider carefully the possible
legal consequences of doing so.3
Legal Considerations, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE-BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS,
http://travel/state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/judicial/country/brazil.html (last updated Nov. 15,
Therefore, the issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff should be compelled to be
deposed in the Utah due to the limitations placed on American attorneys who wish to depose
individuals in Brazil.
Generally, trial courts “ha[ve] great discretion in establishing the time and place of a
deposition.”4 However, courts in the 10th Circuit have found, [i]n the absence of exceptional or
unusual circumstances, when a deponent resides at a substantial distance from the deposing
party’s residence, the deposing party should be required to take the deposition at a location in the
vicinity in which the deponent resides, even if the deponent is a party.”5
As support for its position, Plaintiff relies on two cases, Synthes(U.S.A.) v. G.M. dos Reis
Jr. Ind. Com. De Equip. Medico6 and Partecipazionia Bulgari, S.p.A. v . Meige7 In both cases,
foreign deponents were required to be deposed in the United States. In Synthes, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California found “[b]ecause Brazilian law
subjects foreign attorneys who conduct depositions of Brazilian nationals in Brazil to potential
arrest, detention, expulsion, or deportation, any depositions of Brazilian nationals in this case are
to be conducted in the United States.”8 Soares argues that these cases are distinguishable and are
not persuasive. Further, Soares argues “Plaintiffs have failed to overcome the presumption that
the deposition be taken where Mr. Soares lives.” Therefore, Soares argues that Plaintiffs have
failed to realize that depositions in Brazil are possible and “rather than attempt to meet the
In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d 625, 628 (10th Cir. 1987).
O’Sullivan v. Rivera, 229 F.R.D. 187, 189 (D. N.M. 2004)(quoting Metrex Research Corp. v. United States, 151
F.RD. 122 (D. Colo. 1993).
No. CIV 07-CV-309-L AJB, 2008 WL 81111 (S.D.Cal. Jan. 8, 2008)(unpublished).
No. 86-2516-CIV-RYSKAMP, 1988 WL 113346 (S.D. Flaz. May 23, 1988)(unpublished).
Id. at *7.
requirements to conduct the deposition in Brazil, Plaintiffs have sought to convince Mr. Soares
to bear the full burden of inconvenience and come to Utah for a deposition.”9
Upon review of the foregoing and in light of the Court’s “great discretion in dictating the
time and place of a deposition,” the Court finds that good cause exists to require Soares to attend
his deposition in the United States at Plaintiff’s expense. The Court finds that this is the just
resolution based upon the very heavy restraints placed upon foreign attorneys under Brazilian
law. While the Court agrees with Soares that depositions in Brazil are not impossible, the Court
finds that the restraints contained in Brazilian law present “unusual and exceptional
circumstances” that warrant the Court to compel Soares to travel to the United States for his
CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Deposition10 is GRANTED.
2) Defendant Luis Henrique Santos Reis Valente Soares is to appear for his deposition at the
law office of Plaintiffs’ counsel in Salt Lake City, Utah within 60 days from the issuance
of this Order unless the parties agree in writing submitted to the Court to a longer
3) Plaintiffs are to bear all costs related to Defendant’s deposition, including necessary
travel and lodging expenses required for Soares’s travel from Brazil.
Docket no. 55.
Docket no. 52.
DATED this 13 October 2015.
Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge
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?