Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80174/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Cezmi Kardas v. Astas Holdings A.S.

DOJ Reference No. 189-25-19-38

REQUEST FROM TURKISH COURT 

FOR INFORMATION FROM GOOGLE, 

INC.

Case No.19-mc-80174-VKD 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE EX PARTE 

APPLICATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1782

Re: Dkt. No. 1

The United States, on behalf of the 2nd Civil Court for Intellectual and Industrial Property 

Rights of Istanbul, Turkey (“the Turkish Court”), has filed an ex parte application for an order 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 authorizing service of a subpoena on Google, Inc. for certain 

information relating to video images posted on Google’s YouTube platform. Dkt. No. 2 at 1; Dkt. 

No. 3, Ex. A at 8.

The Court grants the application in part and denies it in part without prejudice, subject to 

the requirements set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

According to the application, the Turkish Court requests the United States’ assistance in 

obtaining information about the subject video and YouTube account holder, the internet protocol 

(“IP”) number(s) for the computer(s) used in connection with the video, as well as the original 

video itself, for use in an intellectual property dispute, Cezmi Kardaş v. Astaş Holding A.Ş. Dkt. 

No. 3, Ex. A at 8; Dkt. No. 8-1 at ECF 4. The United States asks the Court to appoint Assistant 

United States Attorney Claire T. Cormier as Commissioner to serve a subpoena for the evidence 

Case 5:19-mc-80174-VKD Document 9 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 7
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sought by the Turkish Court and to collect evidence in response to the subpoena.1 Dkt. No. 1; 

Dkt. No. 2 at 3; Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 5.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, a district court may order the production of documents or 

testimony for use in a foreign legal proceeding, unless the disclosure would violate a legal 

privilege. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 246-

47 (2004). The statute may be invoked where: (1) the discovery is sought from a person residing 

in the district of the court to which the application is made; (2) the discovery is for use in a 

proceeding before a foreign tribunal; and (3) the applicant is a foreign or international tribunal or 

an “interested person.” Id. at 246.

A district court is not required to grant an application that meets the statutory criteria, but 

instead retains discretion to determine what discovery, if any, should be permitted. Intel, 542 U.S. 

at 264. In exercising that discretion, the court considers several factors:

(1) whether “the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign 

proceeding”;

(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 judicial assistance”;

(3) whether the discovery request “conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proofgathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States”; 

and

(4) whether the discovery requested is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.”

Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65.

A district court’s discretion is guided by the twin aims of § 1782: providing efficient 

assistance to participants in international litigation, and encouraging foreign countries by example 

 

1 The government’s request is ambiguous. The application requests an order authorizing Ms. 

Cormier to execute the subpoena and collect evidence, but the memorandum says that the United 

States and Google have agreed that Google will provide the evidence directly to the Turkish 

Embassy.

Case 5:19-mc-80174-VKD Document 9 Filed 07/25/19 Page 2 of 7
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to provide similar assistance to our courts. Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP, 376 

F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2004). The party seeking discovery need not establish that the information 

sought would be discoverable under the governing law in the foreign proceeding or that United 

States law would allow discovery in an analogous domestic proceeding. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 

247, 261-63.

Applications brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 typically are considered on an ex parte

basis, since “‘parties will be given adequate notice of any discovery taken pursuant to the request 

and will then have the opportunity to move to quash the discovery or to participate in it.’” IPCom 

GmbH & Co. KG v. Apple, Inc., 61 F. Supp. 3d 919, 922 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting In re Republic 

of Ecuador, No. C10-80225 MISC CRB (EMC), 2010 WL 3702427, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 

2010)). “Consequently, orders granting § 1782 applications typically only provide that discovery 

is ‘authorized,’ and thus the opposing party may still raise objections and exercise its due process 

rights by challenging the discovery after it is issued via a motion to quash, which mitigates 

concerns regarding any unfairness of granting the application ex parte.” In re Varian Med. Sys. 

Int’l AG, No. 16-mc-80048-MEJ, 2016 WL 1161568, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016). 

Unless the district court orders otherwise, the discovery authorized by the court must be 

obtained in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); In re 

Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist. Prosecutor’s Office, Tokyo, Japan, 16 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th 

Cir. 1994).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Statutory Requirements

The United States’ application satisfies the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). 

First, the subpoena seeks discovery from Google, which has its principal place of business in this 

district. Second, the United States requests this discovery for use in a civil action pending before a 

court in the Republic of Turkey.2 Third, the United States makes the application on behalf of the 

 

2 There is no indication on the record presented that the proceeding for which the discovery is 

sought has been concluded. See Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, — F.3d —, 2019 WL 3311231 at *3 

(9th Cir., July 24, 2019).

Case 5:19-mc-80174-VKD Document 9 Filed 07/25/19 Page 3 of 7
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Turkish Court, the foreign tribunal before which the civil action is pending. 

B. Intel Factors

Even if the Court has the authority to grant the application, the Court is not required to do 

so. Intel, 542 U.S. at 247. In determining whether judicial assistance under § 1782 is appropriate, 

the Court must consider the additional Intel factors. 

1. Participation of Target in the Foreign Proceeding

Although this factor addresses whether the person from whom discovery is sought is a 

party to the foreign proceeding, “the key issue is whether the material is obtainable through the 

foreign proceeding.” In re Varian Med. Sys., 2016 WL 1161568, at *3 (internal quotations and 

citation omitted). 

The United States’ application does not address this factor directly. However, it appears 

from the application that Google is not a party to the civil action before the Turkish Court, and the 

documents sought by subpoena are located in the United States. Dkt. No. 2 at 1, 3. The Court 

infers that the Turkish Court would not seek the assistance of the United States in obtaining these 

documents if the documents were within the reach of the Turkish Court’s jurisdiction. While it 

appears that the person or entity who is alleged to have posted the video images at issue in the 

civil action is a party to that proceeding, the subpoena appears to seek at least some information 

that may not be in that party’s possession, custody, or control. Dkt. No. 3, Ex. A; Dkt. No. 8-1. In 

these circumstances, the need for assistance pursuant to § 1782(a) is greater than it would be in 

circumstances where the foreign tribunal may order parties appearing before it or third parties 

within its jurisdiction to produce evidence. Intel, 542 U.S. at 264. This factor weighs in favor of 

authorizing service of the subpoena.

2. Receptivity of Foreign Tribunal to U.S. Judicial Assistance

Under this factor, the Court considers “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 judicial assistance.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 264. “This factor 

focuses on whether the foreign tribunal is willing to consider the information sought.” In re 

Varian Med. Sys., 2016 WL 1161568, at *4.

Case 5:19-mc-80174-VKD Document 9 Filed 07/25/19 Page 4 of 7
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Here, the United States represents that the Turkish Court has requested its assistance in 

obtaining this discovery. See Dkt. No. 2 at 1. This factor weighs in favor of authorizing service of 

the subpoena.

3. Circumvention of Proof-Gathering Restrictions

Under this factor, the Court considers whether the request for discovery “conceals an 

attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or 

the United States.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 265.

The United States’ application does not address this factor directly. However, the Court 

assumes that the Turkish Court would not request this discovery if it were contrary to the proofgathering restrictions or other policies of Turkey to do so. This factor weighs in favor of 

authorizing service of the subpoena.

4. Unduly Burdensome or Intrusive Discovery

Under this factor, the Court considers whether the discovery is sought is “unduly intrusive 

or burdensome.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 265.

The United States’ application also fails to address this factor. The proposed subpoena to 

Google includes the following requests for documents and information:

1. Account holder relating to the links: 

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=0WO7HaZEvil or 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WO7HaZEyil or associated 

with the attached screenshots

2. IP number of the computer that created the related YouTube 

account

3. IP number of the computer where the YouTube video was 

installed

4. IP number of the computer that deleted the YouTube video

5. The original YouTube video previously found at the above link

6. Upload and delete dates of the video previously found at the 

above link

Dkt. No. 8-1 at ECF 4. The United States represents that Google does not object to entry of the 

proposed order accompanying the application, but that Google likely will object to requests that 

Case 5:19-mc-80174-VKD Document 9 Filed 07/25/19 Page 5 of 7
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

seek actual content. Dkt. No. 3 ¶ 3; see, e.g., Optiver Australia Pty. Ltd. v. Tibra Trading Pty. 

Ltd., No. C 12-80242 EJD (PSG), 2013 WL 256771, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2013) (discussing 

prohibitions of Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.). Having reviewed the 

categories of documents and information sought by the proposed subpoena, for the most part the 

Court has no reason to expect that the subpoena seeks discovery that would be “unduly intrusive 

or burdensome” for Google or for any person who is interested in Google’s disclosure of the 

requested information. However, the request to serve a subpoena that includes Item No. 5 for

“[t]he original YouTube video previously found at the above link” is denied without prejudice, 

subject to a showing by the United States that such disclosure is not prohibited by the Stored 

Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2702.

The United States proposes to require Google to “provide notice of the subpoena to the 

relevant users of the subject YouTube accounts and afford them the opportunity to file an 

objection or motion to quash.” Dkt. No. 2 at 3. Such notice is appropriate, as such account 

holders are likely to have an interest in the information that is subject to the subpoena. 

With the exception of proposed Item No. 5, this factor weighs in favor of authorizing 

service of the subpoena, with appropriate notice to other interested parties.

IV. CONCLUSION

The United States’ application on behalf of the Turkish Court meets the statutory criteria 

for an order authorizing service of the proposed subpoena. In addition, the factors that inform the 

Court’s exercise of its discretion under Intel also favor authorizing service of the proposed 

subpoena, with the exception of proposed Item No. 5

Accordingly, the Court authorizes service of a revised version of the proposed subpoena on 

Google; the United States’ request to serve a subpoena that includes proposed Item No. 5 is denied 

without prejudice. This order does not foreclose a motion to quash or to further modify the 

subpoena by Google following service, or any other interested party. The Court orders the United 

States and Google to comply with the following requirements to ensure all interested persons have 

an opportunity to contest the subpoena if they wish:

1. The Court appoints AUSA Claire T. Cormier to serve a revised version of the proposed 

Case 5:19-mc-80174-VKD Document 9 Filed 07/25/19 Page 6 of 7
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

subpoena on Google and to receive documents produced in response to the subpoena.

2. At the time of service of the subpoena, the United States must also serve a copy of this 

order on Google. The return date on the subpoena must be at least 35 calendar days 

from the date of service.

3. Within 7 calendar days of receipt of the subpoena and this order, Google shall provide 

copies of the subpoena and this order to any account holder or other relevant user of the 

account that posted the YouTube videos at issue, affected party, or other interested 

person.

4. Within 21 calendar days from the date of receipt of copies of the subpoena and this 

order, any interested person may file a motion in this Court contesting the subpoena 

(including a motion to quash or to modify the subpoena). Such motion shall be served 

on Google and the United States (to the attention of AUSA Claire T. Cormier).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-mc-80174-VKD Document 9 Filed 07/25/19 Page 7 of 7