Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80090/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

ORDER – No. 19-mc-80090-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 Application of

WEST FACE CAPITAL INC.,

Applicant.

Case No. 19-mc-80090-LB

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO SERVE REQUEST FOR 

DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN 

PROCEEDING

Re: ECF No. 1

INTRODUCTION

West Face Capital Inc. is a defendant and counterclaimant in an action pending before the 

Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.1 West Face alleges that the 

counterclaim defendants in its Canadian action engaged in a campaign to defame it, including by 

making false and defamatory statements about it and its CEO in anonymous postings on various 

internet websites.2In an effort to establish that the counterclaim defendants were responsible for 

the anonymous statements, West Face filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking leave 

to issue a subpoena to Google LLC for documents related to certain Gmail email addresses 

 

1 Appl. – ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶ 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.

2

Id.

Case 5:19-mc-80090-LB Document 8 Filed 04/15/19 Page 1 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mc-80090-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

associated with the website on which the statements about West Face were made.

3 Google does 

not oppose West Face’s application.4The court grants West Face’s application to serve its 

proposed subpoena on Google.

ANALYSIS

1. Governing Law

West Face makes its application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which 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. . . . A person may not be compelled to give 

his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing in violation of 

any legally applicable privilege.

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

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

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

pending, 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 Section 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 Section 1782. See In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo 

Dist., 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that the subpoenaed parties may raise 

objections and exercise their due process rights by bringing motions to quash the subpoenas).

 

3

Id. at 2 (¶ 3).

4

Id. at 4 (¶ 8).

Case 5:19-mc-80090-LB Document 8 Filed 04/15/19 Page 2 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mc-80090-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

A district court has wide discretion to grant discovery under Section 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 Section 1782: 

(1) providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation and (2) encouraging 

foreign countries by example to provide similar assistance to our courts. Schmitz v. Bernstein 

Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 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.

When considering an application for discovery pursuant to Section 1782, the court considers 

first whether it has the statutory authority to grant the request and then whether it should exercise 

its discretion to do so. Lazaridis v. Int’l Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, Inc., 760 F. 

Supp. 2d 109, 112 (D.D.C. 2011) (citations omitted).

2. Application

2.1 Statutory Requirements

West Face’s application satisfies the three minimum statutory requirements of Section 1782. 

First, West Face’s application seeks discovery from Google, whose principal place of business is 

in the Northern District of California. Second, the requested discovery is for use in a lawsuit 

currently pending in Canada. Third, West Face qualifies as an “interested person” because it is a 

party to the Canadian lawsuit.

Case 5:19-mc-80090-LB Document 8 Filed 04/15/19 Page 3 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mc-80090-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

2.2 Discretionary Intel Factors

The discretionary Intel factors also support granting the application.

2.2.1 Participant in a foreign proceeding

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

the foreign proceeding.” Intel, 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, available in the United States, may be unobtainable absent § 1782(a) 

aid.” Id.

Google is not a participant in the Canadian lawsuit. Additionally, Google, a resident of 

California, may claim that the documents that West Face seeks are located in the United States and 

not in Canada, and thus possibly out of the immediate reach of the Canadian court.5This factor 

weighs in favor of granting the application. Cf. Thompson v. Doel, No. 5:13-cv-80088-EJD-PSG, 

2013 WL 5544607, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2013).

2.2.2 Nature of the foreign tribunal and receptivity to U.S. federal-court judicial 

assistance

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.” Intel, 542 U.S. 

at 264.

 

5 Appl. – ECF No. 1 at 4 (¶ 7); Mem. of Law – ECF No. 2 at 7.

Case 5:19-mc-80090-LB Document 8 Filed 04/15/19 Page 4 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mc-80090-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

The Canadian court expressly requested the assistance of this court in obtaining documents 

from Google and thus appears receptive to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance.6This factor 

weighs in favor of granting the application.

2.2.3 Attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or policies

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.” Intel, 542 

U.S. at 264–65.

The Canadian court expressly held that this application was not an attempt to circumvent 

Canadian proof-gathering restrictions.7This factor weighs in favor of granting the application.

2.2.4 Undue intrusion or burden

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

U.S. at 265.

Google does not oppose West Face’s application, and the discovery West Face seeks does not 

appear on its face to be unduly intrusive or burdensome. West Face further states that it is willing 

to meet and confer with Google if Google believes that any of its requests are unduly 

burdensome.8This factor weighs in favor of granting the application. Cf. In re Darmon, No. 17-

mc-80089-DMR, 2017 WL 3283969, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2017) (finding that “proposed 

subpoena [that] requests documents that establish or would help to establish the identity of the 

 

6 Appl. Ex. C (Canadian court order) – ECF No. 4-1 at 118 (“THIS COURT FURTHER REQUESTS 

the assistance of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in aiding the 

Moving Parties in obtaining documents from Google by the means ordinarily used in that jurisdiction 

to obtain documents from a non-party[.]”).

7

Id. (Canadian court order) (“THIS COURT DECLARES that the documents to be sought by the 

Moving Parties in the United States may be relevant and necessary to the just determination of the 

Moving Parties’ Counterclaim in this Action, and the Moving Parties’ intent to seek production of 

such documents in the United States is consistent with and not contrary to this Court’s continued 

jurisdiction with respect to this Action and is not an attempt to circumvent the proof-gathering process 

in Canada[.]”).

8 Appl. – ECF No. 1 at 4 (¶ 7); Mem. of Law – ECF No. 2 at 9.

Case 5:19-mc-80090-LB Document 8 Filed 04/15/19 Page 5 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mc-80090-LB 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

author of the blog posts on Wordpress.com” “does not appear to be unduly burdensome and is 

appropriately tailored”).9

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants West Face’s application to serve its proposed 

subpoena on Google.

If Google wants to contest the subpoena, it must notify West Face that it wishes to do so 

before the return date of the subpoena. Then, in lieu of a formal motion to quash, the parties must 

engage in the meet-and-confer and joint-letter-brief processes set out in the court’s standing order, 

which is attached to this order.

West Face must serve Google with a copy of this order and a copy of the standing order when 

it serves its subpoena.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

9 This does not preclude Google from contesting the subpoena. Cf. Darmon, 2017 WL 3283969, at *4.

Case 5:19-mc-80090-LB Document 8 Filed 04/15/19 Page 6 of 6