Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-mc-80028/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-mc-80028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

ORDER — No. 17-mc-80028-LB

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 Francisco Division

IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF 

VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC. 

FOR AN ORDER TO OBTAIN 

DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN 

PROCEEDING

Case No. 17-mc-80028-LB 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO 

CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A 

FOREIGN LEGAL PROCEEDING 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782

Re: ECF No. 1

INTRODUCTION

Vickers Holding filed an ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to take discovery for its 

pending lawsuit in the Netherlands against the defendants there, Jossiv Kim and Angelina Kim, 

who allegedly defrauded Vickers of 2 million euros.

1

Section 1782 allows a district court to order 

a person residing or found within its district to produce documents or provide testimony for use in 

a foreign legal proceeding, unless the disclosure would violate a legal privilege. The court grants 

the application.

STATEMENT

Vickers’ lawsuit in the Netherlands seeks recovery of approximately 2 million euros that 

 

1 Application – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint 

citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

Case 3:17-mc-80028-LB Document 4 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 5
ORDER — No. 17-mc-80028-LB 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

Vickers lent Mr. Kim for a joint venture; the claim is that Mr. Kim diverted the money for 

personal use, including use by family members such as his wife, Angelina Kim.

2

The evidence 

reveals that Ms. Kim has a Wells Fargo bank account.3 Mr. Kim founded two companies in 

California, one called AHK & West Appliances, and one called US DUO Design, Inc.; the 

allegation is that both have Wells Fargo accounts, too, and that stolen money may have been 

transferred to them.

4

Vickers’ counsel in the Netherlands is B.G. Baljet.5 He describes entities affiliated with the 

defendants, coconspirators who diverted and transferred the proceeds, and family members and 

others who may have received money.6These are the persons and entities listed in the proposed 

subpoena, which seeks wire transfers and other information relating to account deposits and 

withdrawals within specified time periods relevant to the diversion of the funds.7

GOVERNING LAW

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) provides:

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.

A litigant in a foreign action qualifies as an “interested person” under § 1782. See Intel Corp. 

v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004). In order to apply for discovery 

pursuant to § 1782, a formal proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction need not be currently pending, 

 

2 Baljet Decl. – ECF No. 2-1, ¶¶ 14, 21, 25–32.

3

Id. ¶ 38.

4

Id. ¶¶ 19–20, 38. 

5

Id. ¶ 1.

6

Id. ¶¶ 8–19

7

Subpoena – ECF No. 1-2.

Case 3:17-mc-80028-LB Document 4 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 5
ORDER — No. 17-mc-80028-LB 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

or even imminent. Id. at 258–59. Instead, all that is necessary is that a “dispositive ruling” by the 

foreign adjudicative body is “within reasonable contemplation.” Id. at 259 (holding that discovery 

was proper under § 1782 even though the applicant’s complaint against the opposing party was 

only in the investigative stage). An ex parte application is an acceptable method for seeking

discovery pursuant to § 1782. See In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 

F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that the subpoenaed parties may raise objections and 

exercise their due-process rights by moving to quash the subpoenas).

A district court has wide discretion to grant or deny discovery under § 1782. Intel, 542 U.S. at 

260–61. In exercising its discretion, a district court should consider the following 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 request “conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering 

restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States”; and (4) whether the request 

is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” Id. at 264–65.

A district court’s discretion is to be exercised in view of the twin aims of § 1782: “providing 

efficient means of assistance to participants in international litigation . . . and encouraging foreign 

countries by example to provide similar means of assistance to our courts.” Schmitz v. Bernstein 

Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 84 (2004). There is no requirement that the party seeking 

discovery 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.

Case 3:17-mc-80028-LB Document 4 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 5
ORDER — No. 17-mc-80028-LB 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

ANALYSIS

The court grants the discovery.

1. Statutory Requirements

The application satisfies the statutory requirements of § 1782. Wells Fargo is in the Northern 

District of California; the discovery sought is “for use” in the Netherlands lawsuit; and Vickers is 

an “interested person” in those proceedings.

2. Intel Factors

The discretionary Intel factors also support granting the application. 

2.1 First Intel Factor: Participant in a Foreign Proceeding. 

The first Intel factor asks whether the “person from whom discovery sought is a participant in 

the foreign proceeding.” 542 U.S. at 264. If the person is a participant, “the need for § 1782(a) aid 

generally is not as apparent as it ordinarily is when evidence is sought from a nonparticipant in the 

matter arising abroad” because “[a] foreign tribunal has jurisdiction over those appearing before it, 

and can itself order them to produce evidence.” Id. “In contrast, nonparticipants in the foreign 

proceeding may be outside the foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional reach; hence, their evidence, 

unavailable in the United States, may be unobtainable absent § 1782(a) aid.” Id.

Wells Fargo is not a participant. This factor weighs in favor of granting the application. 

2.2 Second Intel Factor: The Foreign Proceedings 

The second Intel factor requires the court to “take into account 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.” 542 U.S. at 

264. 

In Intel, the Court “question[ed] whether foreign governments would be offended by a 

domestic prescription permitting, but not requiring, judicial assistance.” Id. at 243–44. 

A foreign nation may limit discovery within its domain for reasons peculiar to its 

own legal practices, culture, or traditions; such reasons do not necessarily signal 

objection to aid from United States federal courts. A foreign tribunal’s reluctance to 

order production of materials present in the United States similarly may signal no 

resistance to the receipt of evidence gathered pursuant to § 1782(a).

Case 3:17-mc-80028-LB Document 4 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 5
ORDER — No. 17-mc-80028-LB 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

Id. at 244.

There is no information that the Netherlands court would reject information obtained through 

§ 1782 discovery; in this situation, courts “err on the side of permitting discovery.” See In re 

Varian Med. Sys. Int’l AG, No. 16-mc-80048-MEJ, 2016 WL 1161568, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 

2016). 

2.3 Third Intel Factor: Evasion of Foreign Proof-Gathering Restrictions

The third Intel factor considers whether the request “conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign 

proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States.” 542 U.S. at 

264–65. There is no evidence of this on this record. 

2.4 Fourth Intel Factor: The Discovery Is Not Unduly Burdensome

The fourth Intel factor is whether the request is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” 542 U.S. at 

265. At least conceptually, it is not, because it is direct evidence of diversion of funds that are the 

subject of the Netherlands case. After Vickers serves the discovery, it must confer with Wells 

Fargo’s counsel to address burden issues and must comply with the procedures for resolving 

discovery disputes in the undersigned’s standing order, which is attached. 

CONCLUSION

The court grants the application for discovery. Vickers may serve the subpoena with a return 

date of 30 days from the date of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2017

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-mc-80028-LB Document 4 Filed 03/14/17 Page 5 of 5