Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80204/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL 

JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE 

NATIONAL COURT OF ORIGINAL 

JURISDICTION NO.18 IN BUENOS 

AIRES, ARGENTINA; MATTER OF 

GOTLIB RODOLFO SAUL V. VESUVIO 

S.A., ET AL., NO. 12425/2015

Case No. 16-mc-80204-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

APPLICATION FOR ORDER 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Petitioner United States of America filed an ex parte application to take discovery pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. (Dkt. No. 1.1) That statute allows a district court to order a person residing 

or found within its district to produce documents or provide testimony for use in a foreign legal 

proceeding, unless the disclosure would violate a legal privilege. Upon consideration of the 

United States’ application and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the application.

BACKGROUND

On behalf of the National Court of Original Jurisdiction No. 18 in Buenos Aires, 

Argentina, the Argentinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship requests that the United 

States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California obtain information from Wells 

Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”) at 1266 Market Street in San Francisco, California, which is located 

in this District. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 8.) The Argentinian court seeks the information for use in a 

lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Rodolfo Saúl Gotlib against Defendants PCDA S.A., Vesuvio 

S.A.C.I.F. E I., and Juan Carlos Navarro Castex. (Id. at 9.) Specifically, the court requests the 

following information: “1) if Mr. Rodolfo Saúl Gotlib and/or the firm WIDECOMBE FINANCE 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:16-mc-80204-JSC Document 2 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 4
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

S.A. is or was registered as a beneficiary of a bank account with [Wells Fargo]; 2) if so, determine 

the amounts deposited between 2003 and 2014 and define which was the company that made such 

deposits.” (Id. at 8.)

According to Assistant United States Attorney Wendy M. Garbers, she made attempts to 

contact Wells Fargo through a letter dated August 25, 2016 and a phone call with Wells Fargo 

Legal Order Processing on September 14, 2016. (Id. at 1-2.) To date, Wells Fargo has not 

provided her with any response. (Id.)

The United States filed the pending application on September 27, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) It 

asks the Court to grant the application and to appoint Ms. Garbers as Commissioner and authorize 

her to obtain the requested information from Wells Fargo.

LEGAL STANDARD

Section 1782(a) provides, in pertinent 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). A litigant in a foreign action qualifies as an “interested person” under 

Section 1782. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004). 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 

was still only in the investigative stage). Courts typically handle Section 1782 discovery requests 

in the context of an ex parte application for an order appointing a commissioner to collect the 

information. See In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th 

Cir. 1976) (holding that the subpoenaed parties may object and exercise due process rights by 

bringing motions to quash the subpoenas after the court issues a Section 1782 order); see, e.g., In 

Case 3:16-mc-80204-JSC Document 2 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 4
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

re Request for Int’l Judicial Assistance from the Nat’l Court Admin. of the Republic of Korea, No. 

C15-80069 MISC LB, 2015 WL 1064790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2015) (granting ex parte

application for a Section 1782 order); In re Request for Int’l Judicial Assistance from the 16th 

Family Ct. of the Supreme Ct. of Justice of the Fed. Dist., No. 14-MC-80083-JST, 2014 WL 

1202545, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014) (same).

The court retains wide discretion to grant discovery under Section 1782. See Intel, 542 

U.S. at 260-61. In exercising its discretion, the court considers 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; see also In re Request for Judicial Assistance 

from the Seoul Dist. Crim. Ct., 555 F.2d 720, 723 (9th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted) (noting that 

the only requirements explicit in the statute are that the request be made by a foreign or 

international tribunal, and that the testimony or material requested be for use in a proceeding in 

such a tribunal, but also holding “that the investigation in connection with which the request is 

made must related to a judicial or quasi-judicial controversy”). 

“A district court’s discretion is to be exercised in view of the twin aims of [Section] 1782: 

providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation, and encouraging foreign 

countries by example to provide similar assistance to our courts.” Nat’l Court Admin. of the 

Republic of Korea, 2015 WL 1064790, at *2 (citing Schmitz v. Bernstein Libehard & Liftshitz, 

LLP, 376 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2004)). The party seeking discovery need not establish that the 

information sought would be discoverable under the foreign court’s law or that the U.S. would 

permit the discovery in an analogous domestic proceeding. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 247, 261-63.

DISCUSSION

A. Statutory Authority

The United States’ application satisfies the minimum requirements of Section 1782: Wells 

Case 3:16-mc-80204-JSC Document 2 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Fargo resides in San Francisco, California, which is in this District; the requested discovery is for 

use in an Argentinian lawsuit, which is a proceeding before a foreign tribunal; the Argentinian 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship made the request on behalf of the National Court of 

Original Jurisdiction No. 18 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, a foreign tribunal; and the instant ex 

parte application is an acceptable method of requested discovery under Section 1782. See Tokyo 

Dist., Tokyo, Japan, 539 F.2d at 1219.

B. Discretion

The Court finds good cause to exercise its discretion to authorize the requested discovery. 

Although Wells Fargo is not a litigant in the Argentinian lawsuit, Argentina requested the 

information, which makes clear that the Argentinian court is receptive to this Court’s assistance 

and that the request is not an attempt to circumvent proof-gathering restrictions in either Argentina 

or the United States. The requested information appears to be discrete and not unduly intrusive or 

burdensome; the information also does not appear to be privileged. However, should Wells Fargo 

disagree upon being served with the subpoena, it may file a motion to quash and raise any issues it 

has at that time.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the United States’ application and 

appoints Assistant United States Attorney Wendy M. Garbers as Commissioner and authorizes her 

to obtain the requested discovery from Wells Fargo. Should Wells Fargo file a motion to quash, 

this action shall automatically be reopened.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 1. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-mc-80204-JSC Document 2 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 4