Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-mc-80099/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-mc-80099-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
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

1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

2 It appears from the docket that mail sent to address Plaintiff supplied for RateMDs, Inc.

has been returned by the post office. Because the court finds Plaintiffs have not shown that Section

1782 assistance is warranted, it is unnecessary to require corrected service at this time.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MOHAMED FODA, M.D., et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAPITAL HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants, ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 10-80099 MISC JW (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN

ORDER TO TAKE THIRD PARTY

DISCOVERY VIA SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1782

(Re: Docket No. 3)

On May 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Order to Take Third Party Discovery via

Subpoena Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.1

 No opposition has been filed.2 Based on the papers

submitted by Plaintiffs and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

District courts are authorized to order persons within their district to produce documents or

Case 5:10-mc-80099-JW Document 10 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

give testimony for use in a foreign or international tribunal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Section

1782(a) provides, in relevant part:

“The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found

may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a

document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or

international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted

before formal accusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter

rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal

or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that

the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be

produced, before a person appointed by the court.”

The Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, Canada clearly qualifies as “a foreign or

international tribunal” for purposes of Section 1782. And Plaintiffs appear to qualify as “interested

persons.” Thus, this court has the authority to order RateMDs, Inc., which is located in this district,

to produce the requested documents. However, “a district court is not required to grant a § 1782(a)

discovery application simply because it has the authority to do so.” See Intel Corp. v. Advanced

Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004). 

Factors courts consider in ruling on Section 1782(a) requests include, among other things,

“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.” Ibid. Another consideration is

“whether the § 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering

restrictions.” Id. at 265. Thus, although the Supreme Court rejected any categorical foreigndiscoverability rule, it did indicate that foreign-discoverability may be considered by a court as a

matter of comity in deciding whether to grant discovery in particular cases. See Intel Corp. v.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. at 243 (“comity and parity concerns may be legitimate

touchstones for a district court’s exercise of discretion in particular cases”). 

II. DISCUSSION

In the present case, Plaintiffs have not shown that allowing the requested discovery is

warranted. 

As to postings on RateMDs.com prior to July 16, 2008, those postings were the subject of

Plaintiffs’ prior application for discovery from RateMDs, Inc. pursuant to Section 1782(a), which

Case 5:10-mc-80099-JW Document 10 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 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

ORDER, page 3

was granted by the court. If Plaintiffs believed that RateMDs, Inc.’s response was insufficient, they

should have timely moved to compel or for contempt.

As to the only comment posted after July 2008 discussed in Plaintiffs’ application, Plaintiffs

have not shown a “compelling need for the discovery sought outweighs the First Amendment rights

of the anonymous speaker.” See, Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088 (W.D. Wash.

2001). The posting at issue reads as follows:

“My husband also had problems with the scheduling done at Dr. Foda’s office. I am

not sure why there is such difficulty. My husband rescheduled his appointment and

when we called to confirm the date we were told there was no appointment so we had

to make another appointment.”

While Plaintiffs argue that this statement is “false and defamatory,” they make no factual

showing that this statement could form the basis for a cause of action under the laws of Alberta or

Canada. In California, the tort of defamation requires, at a minimum, a showing that the statement is

false and unprivileged. See, CAL.CIV.CODE § 45. Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence from which

a reasonable trier of fact could determinat that Dr. Foda’s staff have never incorrectly scheduled a

patient’s appointment. Moreover, the purpose of the postings on RateMDs.com appears to be so that

persons interested in learning about a doctor they are considering consulting can find out what

experiences other patients have had with that doctor. This raises the distinct possibility that under

California law the communications would be privileged, and thus not actionable. See,

CAL.CIV.CODE § 47(c) (communications made without malice to a person interested therein by one

who is also interested are privileged). 

As to the positive comments that were deleted from RateMDs.com, Plaintiffs fail to explain

how such information would be relevant to either of the Canadian actions. In the May 25, 2010

Interim Order, the court expressly directed Plaintiffs to brief this issue. Because Plaintiffs have

made no showing that the information sought is relevant to the Canadian actions, denial of their

motion as to this information is warranted.

Finally, while Plaintiffs accurately list the factors courts consider in determining whether to

grant motions for Section 1782(a) discovery, they fail to discuss either the receptivity of the

Canadian court to the requested assistance or whether their Section 1782(a) request conceals any

Case 5:10-mc-80099-JW Document 10 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 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

ORDER, page 4

attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. Specifically, there is no discussion of

whether or not discovery is currently open in either of the Canadian actions.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs have failed to show that an order allowing them to serve the proposed subpoena on

RateMDs, Inc. is warranted. The only posting they discuss that was not the subject of the court’s

prior order does not appear on its face to be actionable, and Plaintiffs have made no factual showing

that the statement would be actionable under the laws of Alberta or Canada. Nor have they

explained how information regarding the deletion of positive comments is relevant to either of the

pending Canadian actions. Finally, Plaintiffs fail to provide sufficient information from which this

court could determine whether or not the Canadian court would be receptive to this court’s

assistance. For all of these reasons, denial of Plaintiffs’ motion is warranted.

Dated: July 26, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-mc-80099-JW Document 10 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 4