Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01055/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01055-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Karsen, Ltd., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01055-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for issuance of letters rogatory to the Indian

Ministry of Law and Justice (doc. 48). Defendant Eugene Selihov did not respond and the

time for doing so has expired. 

Plaintiff asks the court to issue a request for judicial assistance to the

government of India to compel the production of documents from third party Directi Internet

Solutions, Pvt. Ltd. ("Directi"). Directi is located in Mumbai, India. It operates the website

www.privacyprotect.org, which allows website owners to hide their identity. 

Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit against Karsen, Ltd., the party it believed owned

www.scaminformer.com. After the court entered default judgment against Karsen, Ltd.,

Selihov appeared and claimed that he owned www.scaminformer.com. Identical websites

have appeared since this litigation commenced, including www.scamtracers.com,

www.scamion.com, www.devreviews.com, and www.scamfraudripoff.com. The appearance

and content of these websites is very similar to www.scaminformer.com. All five sites are

hosted by the same Russian company. And the HTML source code accessible only to a site's

Case 2:11-cv-01055-FJM Document 68 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

administrator links www.scaminformer.com with www.scamion.com. Defendant denies

owning any of these duplicate sites and their owners' identity is hidden by Directi's privacy

protection service. 

The Hague Convention, of which the United States and India are signatories, provides

the procedures for obtaining evidence abroad for use in judicial proceedings. District courts

have inherent authority to issue letters of request to foreign tribunals. See 28 U.S.C. §

1781(b)(2); United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958). Rule 28(b), Fed. R.

Civ. P., provides that letters rogatory may be issued to take a deposition in a foreign country

on appropriate terms after application and notice and without a showing that taking the

deposition in another manner is impractical or inconvenient. This Rule formerly provided

that "letters rogatory shall be issued only when necessary or convenient" (emphasis added).

This limitation was removed without comment in a 1963 amendment. Courts generally issue

a letter of request unless the party opposing the request demonstrates good reason why it

should not issue. See, e.g., In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 361, 364-65 & n.17

(D. Kan. 2010); Evanston Ins. Co. v. OEA, Inc., No. CIV S-02-1505 DFL PAN, 2006 WL

1652315 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2006); Zassenhaus v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 404 F.2d

1361, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1968).

Defendant does not oppose this motion. The information plaintiff seeks may be

relevant to its case and lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Permitting discovery

here is consistent with Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. However, any delay in responding to

the request shall not be cause to delay this case.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion for issuance of letters rogatory to

the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice (doc. 48). We do so by separate order.

DATED this 25th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01055-FJM Document 68 Filed 09/27/12 Page 2 of 2