Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02991/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02991-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 28:1782 Assistance to Foreign Tribunals (incl letter rogatory)

---

1

16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re Ex Parte Application of OmniArch 

Capital Corporation, OmniArch 

Management Corporation, OmniArch 

Fixed Income Limited Partnership, and 

OmniArch Fixed Income G.P. Ltd., 

Applicants, For an Order Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1782 Granting Leave to Serve 

Discovery in Aid of a Foreign Proceeding

Case No.: 16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO SUBPOENA 

DOCUMENTS IN AID OF A 

FOREIGN JUDICIAL PROCEEDING

Some of the parties to a Canadian legal action who accused two American 

investment management companies of bilking them out of roughly $40 million have

returned to this Court seeking additional discovery assistance. Previously, this Court 

allowed applicants—a number of entities that can be functionally grouped together and 

referred to as OmniArch—to subpoena records from one of the American companies to 

produce transactional records bearing on this alleged fraud. Now OmniArch seeks this 

Court’s assistance in subpoenaing the deposition of the defendant firm’s principal and the 

records of two additional entities. OmniArch’s ex parte application is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

When international courts or litigants request evidence from the United States, a 

U.S. district court may order a person residing or found in its district “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. . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). In order to issue a subpoena under 

Case 3:16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS Document 6 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS

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

section 1782, a court must find that the foreign application meets three threshold statutory 

requirements, and that the exercise of its discretion is proper based on the four 

non-exhaustive factors set forth in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 

241, 264-65 (2004).

A. Statutory Authority

A foreign request for judicial assistance under section 1782 must establish that: 

(1) the person from whom discovery is sought “resides or is found” in the district; (2) the 

requested discovery is “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal”; and 

(3) the request is made “by a foreign or international tribunal” or “any interested person.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); see also IPCom GMBH & Co. KG v. Apple Inc., 61 F.Supp.3d 919, 

922 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

These threshold requirements are met here. First, the discovery is sought from 

J. Thomas Epperson (for deposition) as well as Team Nation Investment Fund III, L.P., 

and San Diego Private Bank (for records), all of which reside in this district. Second, the 

deposition would help explain the documents already provided, and the additional 

documentary requests will help clear up the financial transactions that OmniArch claims 

are part of the fraud. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada, already ordered the

requested deposition and documents divulged, so they would clearly be of use in the 

Canadian litigation. Finally, both the Canadian court, in its ex parte disclosure order, and 

the plaintiff Canadian businesses, through the present application, have requested this 

Court’s assistance. [Doc. 1; Doc. 1-7, at 6, ¶10.]

B. Intel Discretionary Factors

But “a district court is not required to grant a § 1782(a) discovery application simply 

because it has the authority to do so.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 264 (citation omitted). In 

exercising its discretion, a court must consider: (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”; 

Case 3:16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS Document 6 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS

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

(3) “whether the § 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proofgathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States”; and 

(4) whether it is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” Id. at 264-65 (citations omitted). 

Each of the Intel factors weigh in favor of issuing the requested subpoenas. 

Epperson, Team Nation, and San Diego Private Bank are not parties to the foreign 

proceeding. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 264 (“[T]he 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.”). The foreign tribunal is a Canadian civil court with familiar legal 

procedures and safeguards, proceeding in a fashion typical to American lawsuits. The 

foreign court explicitly requested American judicial assistance. And the Canadian 

government has long been receptive to such American judicial cooperation. See, e.g., In 

re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557, 563-64 (9th Cir. 

2011) (discussing the mutual legal assistance treaty between Canada and the United States).

Since the application largely echoes the Canadian court’s disclosure order, it is plainly not 

a camouflaged method for circumventing Canadian evidence-gathering restrictions or 

similar policies. Finally, the subpoena should not unduly burden any of the responding 

parties. The requested discovery mirrors the Canadian court’s order, goes to the heart of 

the Canadian action, and is narrowly tailored to that proceeding’s ends.

C. Ex Parte Proceedings

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that § 1782 applications and letters rogatory “are 

customarily received and appropriate action taken with respect thereto ex parte,” because 

witnesses can later “exercise[] their due process rights by motions to quash the subpoenas.” 

In re Letters Rogatory from the Tokyo District, Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 

1976). Thus, this Court permits the application to proceed ex parte. But in case there are 

factual or legal issues that are not apparent from the current ex parte record, the responding 

parties will have 15 calendar days after service to contest the respective subpoenas.

Case 3:16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS Document 6 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS

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

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the application is GRANTED. The applicants may cause service

of the proposed subpoenas on J. Thomas Epperson, Team Nation Investment Fund III, L.P., 

and San Diego Private Bank, except that the subpoenas’ return date must be set at least 

15 calendar days after service.

Dated: May 10, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02991-CAB-AGS Document 6 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4