Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80191/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-mc-80191-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE APPLICATION OF MING YANG, 

PETITIONER, FOR AN ORDER 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 TO 

TAKE DISCOVERY FOR USE IN 

FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS, PURSUANT 

TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE, OF RESPONDENT LEO 

GU, AS TRUSTEE OF THE GU FAMILY 

TRUST

Case No.19-mc-80191-VKD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

RELATE CASES

Re: Dkt. No. 13

In this proceeding, applicant Ming Yang seeks an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 

authorizing service of a subpoena for discovery from Leo Gu as Trustee of the Gu Family Trust 

(“Gu Trust”) for use in a proceeding before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of the British 

Virgin Islands (“BVI Court”). Dkt. No. 1. On August 16, 2019, Mr. Yang filed a notice of related 

case in which he asks the Court to relate this case to a later filed proceeding captioned In re 

Application of Ming Yang, Petitioner, for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Take 

Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of 

Respondent The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Case No. 3:19-mc-080207-LB (N.D. Cal.) (“the 

Goldman Sachs Action”). Dkt. No. 13. The Court construes that notice as an administrative 

motion to relate the cases pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b). The Court denies the motion.

Mr. Yang contends that both actions “concern substantially the same parties, property, 

transaction, or events” because they both seek discovery for use in the same foreign litigation 

before the BVI Court. Dkt. No. 8 at 1. However, the Goldman Sachs Action involves a different 

subpoena recipient and does not concern the same property, transaction, or events as to the 

subpoena recipients. As the Court explained in its previous order denying Mr. Yang’s earlier 

motion to relate (Dkt. No. 12), it is possible that the subpoena recipients—the Gu Trust and 

Case 5:19-mc-80191-VKD Document 14 Filed 08/23/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Goldman Sachs1—may challenge their respective subpoenas, if service is authorized, resulting in 

contested motion practice before the Court. However, the resolution of any such disputes likely 

will depend on facts and circumstances specific to the Gu Trust or Goldman Sachs, respectively, 

and is unlikely to require duplication of effort by the Court. Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(2).

Accordingly, for the reasons described above, Mr. Yang’s motion to relate cases is denied. 

Mr. Yang is directed to review and comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 3-12(b) with 

respect to any future motions to relate cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 The Court understands that the Gu Trust and Goldman Sachs are unrelated non-parties in the 

lawsuit Mr. Yang has filed in the BVI Court.

Case 5:19-mc-80191-VKD Document 14 Filed 08/23/19 Page 2 of 2