Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-mc-80034/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-mc-80034-0/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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE BELUGA SHIPPING GMBH & CO.

KS “BELUGA FANTASTIC” V. SUZLON

ENERGY LTD., FEDERAL COURT

PROCEEDINGS, NSD 1670 OF 2008

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT, NEW

SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Misc. Case No.: 10-80034 JW (PVT)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE SUZLON’S PETITION

FOR LEAVE TO TAKE DISCOVERY

IN AID OF FOREIGN JUDICIAL

PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. §1782

[Docket No. 1]

Suzlon Energy, Ltd., Suzlon Energy Australia PTY Ltd., Suzlon Infrastructure Limited,

Suzlon Wind Energy Corporation, USA, Suzlon Structures PTE, Ltd. and SE Shipping PTE Ltd.

petition for leave to take discovery in aid of foreign judicial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1782. (collectively “petitioners” or “Suzlon”). 

In an action proceeding in the Federal Court in New South Wales, Australia, Suzlon states

that their former employees, Rajagopalan Sridhar (Chief Manufacturing Officer) and Sanjeev

Bangad (General Manager, Logistics), have been named as cross-defendants and allegations against

them include claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Specifically, Suzlon alleges that

individual cross-defendants Sridhar and Bangad misrepresented to the company whether Suzlon

could procure sufficient ships to transport Suzlon’s cargo, and instead themselves, formed and

incorporated several companies to financially benefit from transporting Suzlon’s cargo. 

Case 5:10-mc-80034-JW Document 8 Filed 02/12/10 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

ORDER, page 2

Suzlon petitions to subpoena the contents of certain electronic mail accounts hosted by nonparty Google, Inc. (“Google”). Suzlon believes that certain email accounts were used by the

individual cross-defendants to facilitate their egregious conduct. Additionally, Suzlon petitions to

depose personnel from Google to authenticate the emails from certain electronic mail accounts. 

Because Google’s headquarters is located in Mountain View, California and in this district, Suzlon

petitions this court for leave to take discovery.

“[A]ll motions must be filed, served and noticed in writing on the motion calendar of the

assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after service of the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-2(a).

Here, Suzlon has not noticed the above-specified petition for a hearing before this court and

does not appear to have served Mr. Sridhar, Mr. Bangad or non-party Google. Accordingly,

Suzlon’s petition for leave to take discovery is denied without prejudice to a properly noticed

motion. 

Suzlon shall serve the individual cross-defendants identified above as well as non-party

Google. In the event the individual cross-defendants reside in Australia, Suzlon’s counsel in the

underlying action may serve the petition as prescribed by Australian law. See,.e.g, Rule 4(f) of the

Fed. R. Civ. P.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 5:10-mc-80034-JW Document 8 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2